Materialist Amendment

[Pharaoh Cat]

Here is my proposed Materialist Amendment:

"Congress shall pass no law except it serve to protect the material well-being of the citizenry against a material threat from a material source."

Already covered under the first amendment?  Well, not entirely, since Congress could conceivably pass a law to protect us against poltergeists or unicorns, outside the context or bailiwick of any currently extant religion - but still, I see your point.  So why do I propose this?  As a counter-attack against any proposed gay marriage amendment.  Should Christians succeed in triggering a Constitutional Convention in which to propose their brainchild, atheists, agnostics, apatheists, and gay rights advocates could unite behind the Materialist Amendment, and in fact these groups could unite right now in threatening to bring the Materialist Amendment to any Constitutional Convention triggered in the future.

Thoughts?
   

[OldGit]

Nice thought, but will it stop them? 

[Sandra Craft]

I like it, it would also being useful to shore up separation of church and state.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Congress has the general power to do a lot more under the Constitution than just respond to threats. It has pro-active powers, such as under the Commerce Clause - that clause gives it the authority to regulate, to create a positive monetary environment, to stimulate economic activity.  To limit Congressional action to simply responding to threats would not just stop it from legislating on one social issue.  It would hamstring the entire legislative branch of the government.

[Stevil]

Congress has the general power to do a lot more under the Constitution than just respond to threats. It has pro-active powers, such as under the Commerce Clause - that clause gives it the authority to regulate, to create a positive monetary environment, to stimulate economic activity.  To limit Congressional action to simply responding to threats would not just stop it from legislating on one social issue.  It would hamstring the entire legislative branch of the government.

Agreed,
You need to tailor the amendment to focus only on the rules of a functioning society, not provision of infrastructure services (schools, roads, hospitals) or economic policy.

[Melmoth]

"Congress shall pass no law except it serve to protect the material well-being of the citizenry against a material threat from a material source."

I'd be all for it if you'd said 'natural' (as in, of the natural universe that we know) rather than 'material'. Limiting things to the 'material' is trickier because it would seem to exclude abstract concepts... and law itself is nothing greater than that. Money, also, is non-corporeal. It involves physical tokens, coins and dollar bills, but these are worthless in themselves. They only have value as symbols of an abstract principle, and that principle itself only has value because it is universally submitted to. It's accepted and used for functionality's sake, like the concept of zero or infinity, or imaginary numbers - not because it is real.

Perhaps your idea of 'material' is less restrictive than mine, though.

[Wessik]

I think it would be seen plainly by the general public as either flagrant anti-christian or needlessly greedy(by the lesser educated).

But I'm all for lessening the restrictive power of the government. I don't think a single stroke of the pen will do this. Exercising liberty requires effort, and constant vigilance, not an amendment that will probably not be enforced, due to the ambiguity of the words "material". Now if only I could light my lazy bum... (I just found a smily site. Sist Sehrvann!)