Actually it'd be Section 5 of the 14th--that permits Congress to enforce Section 1 "by appropriate legislation"

Also, the 14th couldn't be used to prevent private discrimination--though the 13th can be used to prevent private discrimination in some areas (real property).

As for what I'd change about the Const.--repeal the 17th amendment and redraft the 9th so that it has some actual meaning.

for a great paper on what the 9th actually meant, try this

Nice post Dave, and a challenging question at the end.

I disagree with this statement:

Thus, criticism of the use of the Commerce Clause to justify 1960s civil rights legislation is repeatedly confused with criticism of the purposes of said legislation; a handy excuse for liberals to call conservatives racist.

My understanding of the time and positions is that it wasn't an excuse by the liberals to call the racists on their racism, rather the racists were using states rights as an excuse for their racism. OTOH, I give you points for referring to Liberals and Conservatives as opposed to Dems and Repubs given that the bulk of the racist conservatives (NB: not all conservatives are racist, nor all racists conservative) of the time were Dems.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That should have been the only statement in that amendment. Take out all that stuff about the "well regulated militia" blah blah blah. Wasn't necessary.

I'd append to the 9th and 10th amendments "and we really mean it."

And I 'd make spiders illegal.

Three things:

1. Repeal the Three Horrors of 1913: the 16th Amendment (income taxes), the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators, which means that no one in Washington represents the interests of state-level government and the federal grows unchecked), and the Federal Reserve Act (unconstitutional already, but let's add another amendment to make it explicit).

2. Abolish many of the special protections that corporations have been granted lately.

3. A Constitutional amendment guaranteeing economic liberty, at least on a par with freedoms of speech and press. The judges that resisted FDR's New Deal relied on just such a concept for many years, until they began to die and be replaced with FDR's human rubber stamps.

Wouldn't change the Constitution, so much as make use of modern printing.

"----->>>CONGRESS>>LAW>>ESTABLISHMENT>>FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Well, maybe I'd change the second amendment.

"The several States shall have the right to maintain their own well-regulated militias. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, because this right is useful to the security of a free State. Period. End of Discussion."

Crap. Forgot about those less-than and greater-than signs being used in HTML.

Let's try this again:

"----->>>CONGRESS<<<----- shall make no ----->>>LAW<<<-----
respecting an ----->>>ESTABLISHMENT<<<----- of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the ----->>>FREEDOM
OF SPEECH<<<-----, [and so on]."

Stupid modern printing.

I'd repeal the 19th amendment. That is, hands down, my least favorite piece of legislation ever.

vonKreedon--

You wrote:
"My understanding of the time and positions is that it wasn't an excuse by the liberals to call the racists on their racism, rather the racists were using states rights as an excuse for their racism."

Pardon my lack of clarity-- I'm really referring to the albatross modern liberals place on modern conservatives.

Meaning, if I, as a conservative in 2005, call decisions based on the flexible interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause unconstitutional, I run the risk of being painted by an activist liberal an opponent of civil rights, because the civil rights legislation relied on the ICC for their constitutionality.

Case in point? Read this ludicrous piece about Clarence Thomas's adversarial (and in my opinion, correct) position on the abuse of the Commerce Clause.

Admittedly and regrettably, the racist opposition to the Civil Rights Act and its legal progeny have often appropriated antagonism to the Commerce Clause, either out of principle, or more likely, the search for allies.

However, correlation is not causation: to proclaim that contemporary opposition to the Commerce Clause-- or even traditional, New Deal-era opposition-- is based on racism (or sexism, or another offensive -ism) ignores that a constitutional provision is like a knife; it can be used either for surgery or for murder, depending on who wields it.

The conservative/originalist position has long been that, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of a particular piece of legislation, its legal foundation should be based on the correct, and thus stable, constitutional provision. If, for whatever reason, the Constitution does not support the law as written, either it should be rewritten, or seek justification through amendment.

I'm not a lawyer, and I slept through my Con Law classes (hey, I studied war, not law). Yet, I've always felt, perhaps erroneously, that the Constitution as written is an incredibly malleable document.

Just not as malleable as far too many judges would have it.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Oh, and I'd add something more to restrict the power of the judiciary. Really, a lot of the bad law we have in this country was imposed on us from unelected, unaccountable, unremovable judges. Also, I think the lifetime appointment to anyone to any position of real power is a bad idea. I don't care what their party is.

I would add a Definitions Article, like any lawyer would do with a properly drafted contract.

Like:

"Interstate Commerce" means commercial trade in goods and services among the several States, and does not mean any fucking tertiary economic effect resulting from intrastate commerce, you dumbshit liberal assholes.

While we're at it:

The "establishment" of religion means that there shall not be an official State church, and does not mean you can't have a fucking nativity scene in the town square, you dumbshit liberal assholes.

Geez, I'm just getting warmed up.

A "Free Press" means that the instruments of public discourse may express themselves without fear of State interference, and does not mean that dumbshit liberal asshole reporters can slander people with impunity or shield anonymous sources from the consequences of their illegal actions.

The "Right to Privacy" means, well, not a fucking thing. It's not in the text, it's not in the penumbras of the text, so just forget this definition, and we are talking to you, the dumbshit liberal assholes.

An "unreasonable search and seizure" means that when the cops are beating the shit out of some asshole perp, they can't do any permanent damage.

And so on. You get my point, we just needed a few definitions, like a well-written contract.

I'd amend the final bit of the 8th Amendment :

"...nor punishments which are both cruel and unusual inflicted."

'Cause I don't see anything whatsoever "unusual" about hanging a murderer from the nearest lamppost.

(Plus, it'd send most of the "prisoner rights" whiners into a tizzy.)

Michael,

I agree. The Constitution definitely doesn't have enough profanity.

Ditto on the spider thing.