Let's change the U.S. Constitution

[phej]

Ok, so we'll grant you special powers to amend the constitution (avoiding the normal ways (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._process)). Two questions: (1) What would you change? and (2) Why?

I'll start off with amending the Constitution to rescind the 17th Amendment, which specifies that Senators are popularly elected. This Amendment, I think, shifts too much power towards the federal government instead of the states. There's no one in the federal government directly representing the state governments.

[SShack]

Hmm. I think I would want to add an amendment that explains that rights can only be recognized within people. Institutions and objects do not have rights. Our founding fathers probably thought that was pretty self-evident. They were wrong there.

[Corbu]

If you do not like the Constitution of the United States, move, quite simply there exist hundreds of other forms of government. Surely one or more can be found that will tolerate the mere mention of changing the fundamentals of the government's basis that will not result in your being incarcerated or worse for treason.

Also what I am hearing you say about the 17th is that we the people should have no say in who are senators are. That is a good plan, guess from a different point of view it doesn't really matter. Politician don't really represent their constituents any ways. Would save a great deal of time and money all around.

[phej]

Also what I am hearing you say about the 17th is that we the people should have no say in who are senators are. That is a good plan, guess from a different point of view it doesn't really matter. Politician don't really represent their constituents any ways. Would save a great deal of time and money all around.

The people are already represented by members of the House of Representatives.

[themuzicman]

If you do not like the Constitution of the United States, move, quite simply there exist hundreds of other forms of government. Surely one or more can be found that will tolerate the mere mention of changing the fundamentals of the government's basis that will not result in your being incarcerated or worse for treason.


This is incorrect. Even without popular election, your senators would be selected by the folks you elected to govern your state.



I would modify the interstate commerce law so that it only regulates commerce between states, rather than whatever the SCOTUS and congress have altered it to mean, which, in effect, means congress can regulate anything.

I'd repeal the 14th and 17th amendments. (and the 19th... lol j/k)

I'd add an amendment that said that the congress had to balance the budget, except when congress declares war for a limited period of time, and 5 years or the duration of the war, which ever is less, following the conclusion.

I would add an amendment banning distribution of money directly or indirectly to any individual or corporation or organization, except when it is in direct payment for services rendered for or product delivered to the US government at its (the government's) behest.

I would modify the 16th amendment to say that no individual may be taxed for more than 10 percent of their income in a given year.

[SShack]

If you do not like the Constitution of the United States, move, quite simply there exist hundreds of other forms of government. Surely one or more can be found that will tolerate the mere mention of changing the fundamentals of the government's basis that will not result in your being incarcerated or worse for treason.

Yeah, how DARE you even SUGGEST amending the Constitution! Who would ever CONSIDER such a thing! :p

[polaroid]

I'd like the amendment about individuals' rights not specified to elaborate such that anything which harms no one other than oneself would be legal, and such that the right to bodily autonomy is specified as unalienable. Yay drugs, gay marriage, and abortions!

[Profit]

I'll start off with amending the Constitution to rescind the 17th Amendment, which specifies that Senators are popularly elected. This Amendment, I think, shifts too much power towards the federal government instead of the states. There's no one in the federal government directly representing the state governments.

If your goal is an increase state's rights the 17th is the least of your worries. The reason that senators were appointed by state governments prior to the 17th amendment was to check the 'passions' of voters. The founders actually saw democracy as a rather dirty word and associated it with mob rule. They sought to establish a representative democracy but wanted to insure that level headed men were elected to the higher house of legislative branch of the federal government. The members of the House of Representatives would be popularly elected to shorter terms making them subject to the immediate views/interests of the people. To keep them in check Senators would be appointed by state governments and serve longer terms. Thus the Senate was there to check the lower, less rational House. The same line of thinking applies to the electoral college as well.

Finally state governments are not supposed to be directly represented in the federal government. The Constitution after all was ratified by state conventions not governments. This also was done on purpose.

[Lucid]

I'd repeal the 14th and 17th amendments. (and the 19th... lol j/k)

What is it about republicans and sexism? Do they take your republican card away if you aren't sexist or something? Have you noticed how similar you are, in this way, to radical (and even not so radical) Islam? I find that incredibly ironic.

I'd repeal the 14th and 17th amendments.

Really? The 14th? Are you sure you're thinking of the right amendment?
The 14th Amendment:

The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing Constitutional rights; this was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Its Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause has also been used to recognize: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights; and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away. The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.

I second the no rights for objects or organizations suggestion. I'd also go with the "Yay drugs, gay marriage, and abortions!" option. I'd add euthanasia and suicide to that list as well.

I'd make the 4th amendment a LOT less vague and a LOT more restrictive. I'd do the same for the 10th. I'd allow the citizens of Washington D.C. to vote and I would limit the pay of any government official to a much lower standard than is in place currently. I'd also add an amendment that any electoral candidates cannot take donations from private parties, but instead establish a public fund for elections. I'd put stricter regulations on lobbyists and private interests as well. And I'd remove the electoral college and change the number of senators to be dependent upon the population of a state. I'd also add something preventing the government from subsidizing children.

I'm tempted to add something about intelligence level, education level (and we might as well throw anyone who believes that humans rode on dinosaurs into that category) or the ability to tell the difference between communism, socialism, nazism and one's own ass before being able to vote... but I think that's probably going too far. :blank:

[reb]

I second the no rights for objects or organizations suggestion. I'd also go with the "Yay drugs, gay marriage, and abortions!" option. I'd add euthanasia and suicide to that list as well.

I'd make the 4th amendment a LOT less vague and a LOT more restrictive. I'd do the same for the 10th. I'd allow the citizens of Washington D.C. to vote and I would limit the pay of any government official to a much lower standard than is in place currently. I'd also add an amendment that any electoral candidates cannot take donations from private parties, but instead establish a public fund for elections. I'd put stricter regulations on lobbyists and private interests as well. And I'd remove the electoral college and change the number of senators to be dependent upon the population of a state. I'd also add something preventing the government from subsidizing children.

I'm tempted to add something about intelligence level, education level (and we might as well throw anyone who believes that humans rode on dinosaurs into that category) or the ability to tell the difference between communism, socialism, nazism and one's own ass before being able to vote... but I think that's probably going too far. :blank:

i will third all that, and add 'open carry of firearms, the right to speed on a motorcycle (not a 4 wheeled vehicle...it's rare a motorcyclist kills other than themselves), and the right to choose which federal, state and local projects i fund without the majority of rugrat owners voting me 'in' when i don't want in.

Lucid, you really mean we DIDN'T ride on dinosaurs? and there was never a planet of the apes? i'm disappointed....it's like finding Santa's costume in the backseat of mother's car.

[aku chi]

I'm pretty content with The Constitution of the United States as is. I wouldn't oppose rescinding the 17th ammendment but I would probably oppose all of the other recommended changes. I would prefer it if The Constitution was interpretted more strictly by the judiciary but I'm pretty pleased with the Roberts Supreme Court at the moment.

[saberu]

words on paper are no match for the erosion generations can have on societies structures

but my 2cents would be an ancient law that allowed the population to vote people out of society by removing their protection from the law and making them open to any crime

This would be extremely useful because politicians/public figures would be so scared of getting voted outside the law they wouldn't dare piss people off with frivolous legislation or actions

[phej]

...my apologies for the length...
If your goal is an increase state's rights the 17th is the least of your worries. The reason that senators were appointed by state governments prior to the 17th amendment was to check the 'passions' of voters...

This may be all true, but the practical affect of having Senators beholden to state governments is that it keeps the federal government in check. What else would you do to shift government power back towards the states? (Or do you like the current arrangement already?)

I would modify the interstate commerce law so that it only regulates commerce between states, rather than whatever the SCOTUS and congress have altered it to mean, which, in effect, means congress can regulate anything.

I don't know if that's necessary. There have been a few recent cases in which the SCOTUS ruled against Congress. Besides the Interstate Commerce Clause says that:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

You may disagree with some laws that are based on the Commerce Clause, but it specifies what you want already. Maybe more people should challenge laws that used the Commerce Clause as justification, but weren't really interstate commerce.

I'd repeal the 14th and 17th amendments. (and the 19th... lol j/k)

Why? From your perspective what is wrong with these two amendments?

I'd add an amendment that said that the congress had to balance the budget, except when congress declares war for a limited period of time, and 5 years or the duration of the war, which ever is less, following the conclusion.

I would add an amendment banning distribution of money directly or indirectly to any individual or corporation or organization, except when it is in direct payment for services rendered for or product delivered to the US government at its (the government's) behest.

I would modify the 16th amendment to say that no individual may be taxed for more than 10 percent of their income in a given year.

How would you define these things and not end up with a long Constitution like Alabama's or Texas's? At least in Texas, there are rumblings to rewrite the state constitution each generation. So far, we haven't rewritten it since Reconstruction. (And there are very specific rules in it)

I'd make the 4th amendment a LOT less vague and a LOT more restrictive. I'd do the same for the 10th. I'd allow the citizens of Washington D.C. to vote and I would limit the pay of any government official to a much lower standard than is in place currently.

Can you clarify restrictive? Do you mean the government can do more or can do less?

But government pay shouldn't be specified in the Constitution. Statutes or other regulation can cover that.

I'd also add an amendment that any electoral candidates cannot take donations from private parties, but instead establish a public fund for elections. I'd put stricter regulations on lobbyists and private interests as well. And I'd remove the electoral college and change the number of senators to be dependent upon the population of a state. I'd also add something preventing the government from subsidizing children.

If we allocate senators based on state population, then we may as well go unicameral instead of bicameral.

I'm tempted to add something about intelligence level, education level (and we might as well throw anyone who believes that humans rode on dinosaurs into that category) or the ability to tell the difference between communism, socialism, nazism and one's own ass before being able to vote... but I think that's probably going too far. :blank:

What about making military service obligatory before you can vote? (And if you're a conscientious objector you can do some other service.)

[Muadib]

What about making military service obligatory before you can vote? (And if you're a conscientious objector you can do some other service.)

Not the starship troopers question. Heinlein explained quite clearly that federal service to vote was no better system then any other to get citizenship...it was just the one they had. It is actually a terrible idea because Conscripts are the worst soldiers imaginable.

[ScottH]

If you do not like the Constitution of the United States, move, quite simply there exist hundreds of other forms of government.

Quite simply, voicing opinions such as these are a requirement for participatory citizenship. Why shouldn't people voice their opinions about the constitution? It is, after all, OURS. Anybody who sees descent as something other than laudable has truly missed the point.

Personally, I don't know the constitution well enough to suggest a form or location, but I would amend it so as to strengthen the separation between church and state, making it an impeachable offense to speak of one's religious beliefs when acting in a public capacity. Simply, the goal would be to make it harder for deceitful politicians to solicit favor from religious groups by placating them, and to make it easier for people not afflicted with faith to become elected.

[kevintr]

Not the starship troopers question. Heinlein explained quite clearly that federal service to vote was no better system then any other to get citizenship...it was just the one they had. It is actually a terrible idea because Conscripts are the worst soldiers imaginable.

Like the Germans, Israiles, and probably the Swiss?:p

I coulden't resist I know conscription makes it hard to have a quality military.

I do like the idea of universal conscription primarly for civil service. I think there would be several of benifits to that. Young people could get some affordable post-secondary education, and the goverment would have a cheap pool of labor to provide better services.

[Grimstad]

I'd like the amendment about individuals' rights not specified to elaborate such that anything which harms no one other than oneself would be legal, and such that the right to bodily autonomy is specified as unalienable. Yay drugs, gay marriage, and abortions!

I find it interesting that no one else in this thread has touched on this concept. It is at the very core of the concept of freedom and is the basis of the American Experience yet is so quickly dismissed.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is the first sentence of the second, and largest paragraph, of the Declaration of Independence yet is virtually nonexistent in the constitution. Perhaps because they were considered a given, by our creator, no less. Yet we have allowed society to whittle away at these “unalienable” rights. Why do we need an amendment to give blacks or women rights that they should have had all along?

How many amendments have been repealed? One. Rights have nothing to do with popular opinion yet we are quite willing to sacrifice personal, unalienable, creator given rights to popular opinion or more precisely, special interest groups. Check the history of hemp laws and you will understand. Drugs are bad, or rather what some people do with them. But so is alcohol. Far worse than hemp. It’s only through our efforts to wage war on drugs that we have created an industry for those that are willing to operate outside the law. Without a war on drugs, Pablo Escobar would have been just another Columbian street thug. Prohibition of alcohol was no different.

In all the suggestions in this thread there is only one that is worthwhile. And only Polaroid has mentioned it, till now. The right to pursue happiness, through whatever means that does not do direct bodily harm to others.

And I don’t believe that would quell the abortion debate. That is between the right to life, and the right to liberty.

[themuzicman]

What is it about republicans and sexism? Do they take your republican card away if you aren't sexist or something? Have you noticed how similar you are, in this way, to radical (and even not so radical) Islam? I find that incredibly ironic.

Sorry, I assumed everyone here had a sense of humor. Do you know what j/k means?

Really? The 14th? Are you sure you're thinking of the right amendment?
The 14th Amendment:

I know what the 14th amendment says. It was a result of the civil war and probably the biggest power grab by the federal government over states rights. (Well, that and the 16th.) A lot of really bad legislation and SCOTUS rulings have resulted from it.

Yes, I understand it was used to keep states from creating de facto slavery post civil war, and was used for some good things, as well. However, giving more power to the federal government is generally a bad idea.

[Hamburglar]

I would change the constitution in the following ways:

It would be ONE line

We hold these truths to be self evident.

-----
I say this, because that is the part that everyone believes is in our constitution, and the only one they can really wrap their little brains around.

Might as well keep it easy-that is everyone can hold their truths to be self evident and claim virtuousness.

[Lucid]

Can you clarify restrictive? Do you mean the government can do more or can do less?

Can do less. Right now the 4th and the 10th amendments are somewhat trampled upon.

But government pay shouldn't be specified in the Constitution. Statutes or other regulation can cover that.

That could be said about anything. Statutes or other regulation could cover freedom of speech. I think it should be in the constitution. You asked how we'd change it and I'm telling you. :p

If we allocate senators based on state population, then we may as well go unicameral instead of bicameral.

I'm not sure it's necessary to do so, but you're right we certainly could. Another option would be to make the senate less powerful and the house more powerful.

What about making military service obligatory before you can vote? (And if you're a conscientious objector you can do some other service.)

I'm certainly not opposed to this, though I don't see it as a necessity either. Mandatory social or military service becomes an issue when you have people trying to go to school, etc. But I do think it's a good idea for the citizenry of a country to be required to do something.

I know what the 14th amendment says. It was a result of the civil war and probably the biggest power grab by the federal government over states rights. (Well, that and the 16th.) A lot of really bad legislation and SCOTUS rulings have resulted from it.

Yes, I understand it was used to keep states from creating de facto slavery post civil war, and was used for some good things, as well. However, giving more power to the federal government is generally a bad idea.

Would you be opposed to editing it instead of repealing it? Why throw out the baby with the bath water? You should tell us which parts of the 14th amendment you disagree with.

[themuzicman]

Would you be opposed to editing it instead of repealing it? Why throw out the baby with the bath water? You should tell us which parts of the 14th amendment you disagree with.

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.

The illegal immigration issues with this clause are evident. Further, it is not the role of the federal government to tell the states who may or may not be a citizen of that state.

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.

I don't disagree with the principles espoused here, but the fact that the federal government now has the right to overrule a state's government regarding these things is unacceptable.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Fairly meaningless today. However, again, the federal government is given power over how states choose their electors for President and their representatives.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Again, mandating to the states who may be elected.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

No issues here, per se, other than it's not relevant anymore.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Which just reinforces the power grab of the other elements.

Which did you propose to keep?

[Profit]

I don't disagree with the principles espoused here, but the fact that the federal government now has the right to overrule a state's government regarding these things is unacceptable.




So you are basically saying that you think State governments should have the ability to violate the rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution?

[themuzicman]

So you are basically saying that you think State governments should have the ability to violate the rights of citizens granted by the US Constitution?

Rights aren't granted by the Constitution. They are reserved as inviolable by the federal government. Thus the clause "shall not be abridged." Thus, what we see is that certain rights of individuals are given up for the purpose of having a government that rules over them.

The same thing happens at the state level. Each state enumerates some rights that it will not violate, and the people of that state agree to be governed by that agreement. Thus, each state has its own constitution for this purpose.

THUS, the federal government ought not have the power to tell the people of a state that they may not give up or reserve a particular right for themselves just because the federal government does otherwise.

[Profit]

THUS, the federal government ought not have the power to tell the people of a state that they may not give up or reserve a particular right for themselves just because the federal government does otherwise.

Simple question. Do you support the right of a state government to infringe on a US citizens right to vote in a national election through the use of a poll tax or test of their educational level?

[themuzicman]

Simple question. Do you support the right of a state government to infringe on a US citizens right to vote in a national election through the use of a poll tax or test of their educational level?

I do not think states should be given those rights by its citizens.

[Muadib]

Like the Germans, Israiles, and probably the Swiss?:p

I coulden't resist I know conscription makes it hard to have a quality military.

I do like the idea of universal conscription primarly for civil service. I think there would be several of benifits to that. Young people could get some affordable post-secondary education, and the goverment would have a cheap pool of labor to provide better services.

Each of those countries have very good PROFESSIONAL ARMIES...the volunteer/career members are very good and very motivated. All three of those armies are very well trained, but regardless of training 1 volunteer will do better than 5 or 6 conscripts because he is motivated by patriotism or something instead of force. As well Israel is a whole different ball of wax they have been at war for 4000 years and arent going to stop any time soon, so all of their soldiers are motivated. As to your other points its here nor there to me.

[kevintr]

Each of those countries have very good PROFESSIONAL ARMIES...the volunteer/career members are very good and very motivated. All three of those armies are very well trained, but regardless of training 1 volunteer will do better than 5 or 6 conscripts because he is motivated by patriotism or something instead of force. As well Israel is a whole different ball of wax they have been at war for 4000 years and arent going to stop any time soon, so all of their soldiers are motivated. As to your other points its here nor there to me.

Isreal and Switzerland both have conscript armys and in both world wars Germany had conscription too. I would assume that any conscript army would have a professional element but in the major wars Isreal and Germany fought they were hevily depindent on the conscripted elements of there miltarys. But yes I do agree that conscript armys usually don't do well.

[Muadib]

I am referring to right now...The Commonwealth, France and the US also used conscription or a form thereof. But the brilliance of the German army in the wars was at the staff level...and the officers were not conscripts. Conscript armies can do well in the hands of great men, Napoleon for example...or they can do very poorly in a bad situation...like Vietnam. Generally I am anti-conscription because I would have to deal with them and volunteers are so much easier to motivate.

[ElstonGunn]

I'd take out the second half of this sentence from Article One, Section 9: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

I'd also eliminate the Pocket Veto (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) by saying that if the president ignores a bill and Congress adjourns, then the bill is assumed to be signed into law. I'd like to see the executive branch lose some of its power.

I'd abolish the Electoral College and officially censure the original Constitutional Convention for adopting such a dumbass idea.

I'd expand the Eighth Amendment to specify that capital punishment is inherently cruel and unusual.

I'd also give DC better congressional representation. At least a representative, if not some senators, too.

[Hamburglar]

Property rights are not intrinsic. You have no rights unless others are willing to defend them on your behalf. They won't do this for free. You need to make it worth their while.

Hope you don't mind me quoting you soup, but this was from another thread and I thought it totally should be added to every state/federal constitution. Perhaps a bit more eloquently for constitutional purposes, but you get the idea.