In your opinion, which amendment is not a major concern today?  Why?
549961
Well, the 3rd amendment - there aren't many issues with troops being quartered today.\n\nThe 18th amendment is also now completely irrelevant, as it was repealed by the 21st. \n\nThe rest all are fairly relevant, although it's arguable that some are more important than others.
489337
Dear Friend,\n\nDo you mean "which amendments to the Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights had the most impact on businesses"?  If so, I would say the First Amendment.  Not only does it provide explicit safe haven for our huge media, news, and entertainment industries, the First Amendment protects vital commercial free speech (including advertising, political expenditures, and lobbying).\n\nOr do you mean, "Which amendments to the Constitution subsequent to the Bill of Rights have had the most impact on business"?  If that's the question, I'd say the 14th amendment.  That amendment, intended for the protection of newly-freed African Americans, set forth:\n\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "\n\nBut "person" was deemed to include corporate as well as natural persons, so corporations finally obtained due process rights.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
728686
Real issues. Party matters not at all. As for morals/values. I wouldn't trust any politician to try to tell me about morals. If I'm voting on the morals they stand for, I want nothing to do with it.
60597
a constitutional ammendment.. very unprobable... \nthere are several ways to initiate the process for ammending the constitution, none of which are likely on this or any other issue.
1050736
Hopefully and prayerfully, the "reasonable public" will not allow this to happen... But with all the Bush bashing, and low polls, the new voters just might be swayed to follow the crowd...\n\nHow many of the voting public is reasonable anymore? I've never seen such dismay and frustration going on in America as it is now. Many factors are the reason: the war, gas prices, illegal immigration, etc. The blame always goes to the leader of the country and what ever party is in power at the time.\n\nWho would ever think that a Marriage Amendment would be necessary?  The liberals and most Democrats are livid with the fear that this amendment may actually be given to the people to vote whether they want marriage to remain a "one man and one woman" institution. They KNOW if given to a vote... it will be a flat NO to Gay marriages. \n\nIf this amendment doesn't get through this time..and left to the states to decide... Liberal/Activists Judges will continue to usurp the authority of the state... and allow gays to marry. What kind of future does that offer the children of tomorrow?\n\nNothing makes much sense anymore... it's as if most Americans want to throw out all morals and anything that stands for decency.\n\nI truly fear the 2008 election... I just cannot imagine living in the world that we do now with Liberals at the helm....
40522
Just to be accurate, the "Bill of Rights" are the first ten amendments to the US constitution. To pick the most important one is a tough question. Your environment and background would play an important role in that choice. Guess I'll go out on a limb and say the first:\n\nFreedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. \n\nI mean, if it wasnt for that "right", we might not be able to have this forum.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Bill_of_Rights#The_Amendments
1135340
One good feature of our laws is that they can be changed. Even the Constitution can be amended. The "Bill of Rights" which guarantee Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press etc are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  \n\nAnd there is the Supreme Court decision in "Brown v. Board of Ed" which ruled that "separate is not equal" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against discrimination.\n\nThen there have been laws for social programs which help people like Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" and the legislation that created the Social Security program.  And there are laws for fair labor standards and establishing the minimum wage. \n\nThere are also anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies although these seem to be mostly ignored these days.\n\nFurthermore, a law can be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court so if a locality feels their local law is wrong, they can appeal it. \n\nAlthough in our time laws like the Patriot Act are being used against the people, it was not always so.
1056881
Not without an amendment.   Currently there is no protection of privacy as provided in the constitution. \n\nWhat we need is even just a well written LAW, there really is no need to make amendment.
296987
Women can vote...that's the only one that mattered ;) haha\n\n\nThe Constitution has a total of 27 amendments. Here you go--you asked ;)\n\nFirst Amendment\n\nThe First Amendment addresses the rights of freedom of speech and the press; the right of peaceful assembly; and the right of petition. It also addresses freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting the establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion.\n[edit]\n\nSecond Amendment\n\n    main article: Second Amendment\n\nThe Second Amendment states, in its entirety, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Compared to other amendments, there is little case law about the Second Amendment.\n[edit]\n\nThird Amendment\n\nThe Third Amendment prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers without the consent of the owners. Much as the Second Amendment, there is largely no case law. There has been no Supreme Court case law, and only one odd case, Engblom v. Carey, which has even addressed the Third Amendment.[2]\n[edit]\n\nFourth Amendment\n\nThe Fourth Amendment guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. A general right to privacy has been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court (See Griswold v. Connecticut), including a right to medical abortion.\n[edit]\n\nFifth through Eighth Amendments\n\nThe next four amendments deal with the system of justice. The fifth forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits repeated trials for the same offense after an acquittal (except in certain very limited circumstances); forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Taking the fifth" or "Pleading the fifth"). This is regarded as the "rights of the accused" amendment. The sixth guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury (of peers), guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. The seventh assures trial by jury in civil cases involving anything valued at more than 20 United States dollars at the time, which is currently worth $300 presently, when accounting for inflation. The eighth forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth and sixth amendments were to be read to all persons placed under arrest, and as a result these two amendments have become known as the Miranda warning or Miranda rights.\n[edit]\n\nNinth and Tenth Amendments\n\nThe last two of the first ten amendments contain very broad statements of constitutional authority.\n\nThe Ninth Amendment declares that the listing of individual rights in the Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; that the people have other unenumerated rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The right of privacy has been interpreted as one of these unenumerated rights by many people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms (the protection of which right the Second Amendment prohibits infringement) is also often interpreted as another of these unenumerated rights by many people. [3] Other, pre-existing, non-enumerated rights, besides just these two, continue to exist because of the Ninth Amendment. There is little case law.\n\nThe Tenth Amendment provides that powers the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from having are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The phrase "or to the people", somewhat puzzling as to its applicabil
929278
It is conservative in the sense that it prevents certain actions which some consider risky, and requires behaviors and conformity that many consider important for security.\n\nThe Patriot Act is a messy piece of legislation in some areas, but it doesn't actually reduce any civil liberties. It just reduces privacy in areas where people interact with businesses and other organizations. That's not friendly, but it's not unconstitutional.\n\nThere are plenty of laws passed in the past year or three that are unconstitutional, including the Military Commissions Act. Those are the threats to civil liberties, because those deliberately and systematically say the constitution can be ignored at will.\n\n{EDIT} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \n\nAnd for those who keep asking what civil liberties we've lost, here are the most recent. Denial of right to counsel. Denial of due process. Abrogation of the confrontation clause. Denial of the right against self-incrimination. Denial of the right to assemble. Denial of the right to petition for redress of grievances. Loss of habeas corpus. \n\nThose were MY rights that were taken. Just because I've never had a need to invoke them doesn't make them any less mine. And just because you haven't needed them yet doesn't make them any less yours.\n\nAs a society, we only have those rights we choose to defend. Only those rights we can defend. And if we do not defend them, we lose them. Once, and for all of us.
175630
So much for Democrats complaining about too many constitutional amendments.\n\nWith or without the interpretation which allows any abortions, the Constitutional amendment would fail. It won't even make it out of Congress, much less make it to the states.
954054
(Ah, sounds like a homework question)\nIt depends upon how literal you want to go with "not listed in the Constitution."\nThe biggest one is the right to privacy, which includes right to contraception (Griswold v. Conn.) the right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade) and the right to consensual private sexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas). \nNext, I'd say rights that "spring" from dileaneated rights.  For example, the right to have "Miranda" warnings springs from the 5th Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause.  The right to flag burning and other "expressive conduct" springs from the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.  The right to be free from state sponsored segregation springs from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  The right to (basically) unlimited spending of money for political speech springs from the First Amendment Free Speech clause.  \nIn all of those in the above paragraph, there is nothing in the constitution about getting Miranda warnings, about schools not being segregated, or about getting to spend as much money as you want, but the Courts have interpreted concrete clauses in the constitution as providing those rights.\n\nPowers not in the Constitution that are returned to the States / People:\nPower to regulate real property and conveyances thereof (almost exclusively state controlled)\nPower to enact generally applicable criminal laws (almost all criminal law is state law)\nPower to decide how Presidential Electors are chosen.\nPower of localities to regulate business licenses and zoning laws (not in contradition with federal civil rights)\n\nJust a few.
829319
There are 27 Amendments, and 26 changes.\n\nWhy? Because the 21st amendment repealed the 18th, so the 18th is no longer a change to the constitution, but it is still an amendment.
309605
It's a states rights issue.  It doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government
708503
Well, our "freedoms" in this country are diminishing quickly.   I think the right to vote, the right to bear arms (I am a liberal but I think bearing arms is important), protection from false arrest, and the right to freedom of speech are the most important.
67177
Amendment II\n\nA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
841778
There are no loaws - the Constitution preserves our RIGHTS - that is why laws must always be Constitutional and guarantee our freedoms under the Constitution.   Have you read it lately??  The Govt we have today needs to refer to it.