I, too, am averse to amending or even to a lot of the laws in the questionnaire.  I am somewhat of a libertarian, and believe that a lot of the issues are not specifically empowered to the Federal Government, but, relegated to the States and to the People.  Therefore, holding true to my belief in the 10th Amendment, I could not support a law, which I believe to be unconstitutional.  I support and advocate three - possibly four specific amendments -

1.  Limiting term of service in Congress and Senate

2.  Requiring a balanced budget - except in time of declared war or when approved by "The People" during severe economic downturn.

3.  Repealing the 17th Amendment which singularly has done more damage to undermining the 10th Amendment than anything else.

4.  possbily a line item veto amendment - but that is skeptical.  The President basically has the authority, but, not the courage to do it now.  Line through, send back to Congress, tell them make the changes and I'll sign it.

The key to all of these questions is to get us to think, especially about wording.  For example, I would vote against a bill not granting citizenship to a child born of a foreign citizened mother but, would vote for any child born here whose parent or (parents) are here illegally.  I just know way too many military who married foreign women, brought them home, and that it takes an inordinate amount of time for the mother to become a citizen, and almost all of them do.

Yeah, I voted no a lot more than I voted yes.

Lee

I too am concerned with the "amend the Constitution to do that....amend the Constitution to do this."   After reading the questions, I'm not at all certain this group is for me.  I will "hang in there to see how it goes" but I'm on the fence. 

With respect to the Amendments to the Constitution, even the Bill of Rights, I'd like to provide a post from The Federalist Papers, specifically from Federalist No. 84:

"...It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. ``WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired...."

Our Constitution was never intended to regulate every species of public and private concern.  With limited exceptions, Our Constitution was intended ONLY to circumscribe the realm within which the Federal Government could legitimately act.  It is not supposed to act as a limit or circumscribe the realm within which private individuals or companies can act...."Here, in strictness, the people surrender NOTHING."

That said, the parchment barriers have not been very effective.  The Feds have taken on blatantly unconstitutional functions.  I will work to restrict Federal action to within the original bounds of authority, which I find in Articlle 1, Section 8.

Keep the comments coming. Remember NO is the "right" answer if you say it is. There is no suggestion that any question should be ansewred one way or the other. Based on those commenting in this thread, it seems clear that anyone who answers YES to all of these amend-the-constitution questions is likely on the wrong side of the issue with their peers. That is the point - to understand how a person would vote BEFORE they are in office.

To reiterate, GOOOH does not suggest what any answer should be, only that each participant declare where they stand on each issue.

I did a quick look at the questions before reading any of the forums.  I was shocked at how quickly becoming a candidate in this party meant amending the Constitution.  I will vote no almost every time an amendment is the question regardless of my views on the issue.  Since I must agree to these answers after being elected, and this will also establish my "platform," changing those words means a lot.  Just my 2 cents...

gerri1966,

In most of the cases I recall from the questionairre, it would require a Constitutional amendment to accomplish those specified measures.  This would mean that, whether or not you would vote in favor of a particular law that clearly violates the Constitution, the question is irrelevant, correct?

Ex.  "Will you vote to amend the Constitution to re-establish and re-clarify equal rights for all over special rights for a few (e.g. prisoners, seniors, students, gays, minorities, and women)?"

Doesn't the Constitution already do this?  Why not enforce the law that exists?

9th Amendment:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Do we really need a constitutional amendment for this?  Perhaps.  Maybe a modification to the 9th amendment stating "without regard to race, creed, religion, sexual orientation or other special-interest minority group".  To think that the 9th amendment gives special-interests more rights than you or me is preposterous.  The Bill of Rights wasn't part of the original Constitution, obviously, because the drafters thought individual rights were inferred.  The federalists made a stink, that it would be dangerous if it did not spell out certain rights specifically.  They remembered the tyrants from whom they fled, so they refused to ratify it without the BoR.  Sound familiar?

Here's a touchy one:

"Will you vote to amend the Constitution with a “law of predominant majority”, which says the “rights” of groups can be denied if they have consistently demonstrated behavior that 95 percent of the population considers unacceptable? For example, 95 percent of the population would likely vote that a public KKK rally should NOT be allowed, overriding the “right” of free speech for that particular group?"

In a democracy, you can most certainly vote for this if you want to.  I thank God I live in a Constitutional Republic where, by law, you can't.  The unfortunate thing is, that in practice, our elected officials are not following the principles laid out by the Supreme Law of the Land.

I will support, whole-heartedly, a candidate that will preserve what the founders were so thoughtful to fight for and draft for us a document that establishes that I (by law, mind you, but certainly not by practice) am not subject to mob rule over my very basic right to speak my mind, bear arms, be secure in my person and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause, to be secure on my private property which cannot be seized for public use without just compensation, etc., etc., etc.

See where I'm going?

Respectful Regards,

Carl

Great conversation. Focus groups showed that many if not most people voted no on several of the amendment questions, not because they necessarily disagreed with the question, but because they did not believe in amending the constitution. Voting no did not seem to work against anybody. Remember, there are not right or wrong answers - the individuals in each group will determine what they believe is best. You may very well be correct that many or all of the "amend" questions should just be transitioned to "laws". Let's see what others say. Once we have critical mass in membership, we will be able to survey all members and adjust any or all of the questions acordingly.

Remember, the current list of questions is just a starting point. If you were to change one question from "amend," which one would it be?

I think that all of the Constitutional amendment questions would be better served if they stated simply, "Would you vote for a law that...."

The purpose of the question is still present.  The Constitution doesn't have to be amended to accomplish the goals being presented.

Many of the questions on the list do make reference to Constitutional amendments.  The key, IMHO, is if our elected federal official are currently not following the Constitution, why are more amendments in order?  Congress needs to review and repeal laws that are currently in violation of the Constitution before any further amendments are considered.

I agree; amending the Constitution is and should be a difficult process.  The original authors were smart enough to know that basic laws should not be changed on a whim.

So if you're not in favor of amending the constitution, then you'd have to choose "no" on the appropriate candidate question.  That's how I see it.

Amending the Constitution is an act that should only be done in dire times. Once that door is open there is no telling what will happen. Besides the government ignores the document anyway so the issue is not the document but how its treated.