Redstate

A constitutional amendment is a difficult thing. There are so many much, much, more important ones we could place our time and effort behind, like for instance: Balanced Budget, Congressional Term Limits, Line Item Veto. to name a few.

I would also like to see an amendment that finally puts to rest all the legal wrangling from the ACLU types. Something like: The simple public display of historical religious symbols or non sectarian public prayers shall be considered innocuous and in no way shall be considered an establishment of religion.

All of these are IMO more important.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You don't want to think about what the Legislatures of some states could do with that.

That's the problem with nice little toys like amendments and "constitutional options," nobody thinks about what the other guy could do with them.

In Vino Veritas

The 5 justices would just usurp the Constitutional Amendment.

Jim Tomasik

according to Rep James Fagan (D-MA) if any victim of child rape dares to take the stand against the person who raped her/him, he is going to ruin their lives forever.

I don't see a reason why Congress would do something to give the states power. They have been working (generally) on making themselves Lord over All States since before the civil war.

Isn't going to stop now, even to protect children from multiple-count-patterned-child-rapists.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

We already have that amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The problem is that all three branches of the federal government consistently ignore this amendment.

What you really want to do is either repeal or totally rewrite the 8th Amendment.

Really, your amendment is already the law and custom of the country, and even passing it would not change the fact that the 8th amendment exists. You have given the states a "privilege" - but the lawyer in me clearly sees that, quite rightly, that "privilege" would still be limited by the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

What needs to happen is that the 8th Amendment needs to be rewritten to state take away the ability of courts, and specifically the SCOTUS, to use an "evolving standards of decency" test. Right this moment, I'm not exactly sure what the "new" 8th Amendment would say to achieve that goal, but that's the direction you need to do in.

I believe that an Amendment is an entirely appropriate response to the Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy vs. Louisiana. It is time for the Congress and the States to stand up to judicial overreach.

I propose a rebuke of the Court with a much more modest scope:

"In the case of the rape of a minor, the death penalty is not Cruel and Unusual Punishment."

This amendment is much more focused on the erroneous rationale of the opinion. The Court purports to speak for the consensus of Americans. With this Amendment, Americans expose the Court as out of touch and out of control. It squarely rejects the Court, and records that rejection forever in the text of the United States Constitution.

The Amendment process is the appropriate avenue for the people to express their consensus. We have been presented an opportunity to remind Americans of how the Founders intended the Constitution be changed by the will of the people.

If 2/3's of the House, 2/3's of the Senate, and 3/4's of State Legislatures, cannot agree that the death penalty should be a constitutional punishment for the rape of the child, then what are they good for? It is hard for me to conceive of an issue which could garner more popular support.

Both Presidential candidates oppose the decision. Politicians being what they are, I cannot imagine this Amendment being defeated by an open vote. Too often politicians hide behind the judiciary to avoid making a stand. "The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue," they say. It is time for us to remind the Congress of its duty to protect the Constitution.

We need to prove that an Amendment can be ratified. This is the time and the case to do it.