If We Rewrote The Constitution...

[Listening]

What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am likely the cause of some of this, due to this posting of mine:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/327232-the-10th-amendment-7.html#post8307072

In his book, "A More Perfect Constitution", Larry Sabato - hardly a Liberal - lays out 23 proposals for changes to the US Constitution, such that a Convention and an ensueing new document would probably be the better way to go.

Look at it this way: when you need to patch a document 27 times, which is what we have done with 27 different amendments, then you can just as easily start again. The quote from Thomas Jefferson about this is in the link above.

One of the things I would definitely change would be the entire system of electioneering, since very, very little about the nuts and bolts of electioneering is in the Constitution, when you examine it yourself. But no worry, I am not for ending the so-called "Electoral College" (which does not exist as a term in the Constitution at all), but rather, for mending it.

The whole rubrik of electioneering is so huge and would require such a complete overhaul, that I will create a thread specifically about this at the weekend, once a major project is out of the way.

But some other things:

-I would move the language of the Constitution to 21st century legal English and forgo the quaint half-old-English of our forefathers.

-I would incorporate the vast majority of the 27 amendments into the body of a new constitution, but organize it somewhat differently. I would organize the Constitution into 8 parts, not three:

-Principles of human worth

Then specifically, as relates to governing:

-The Legislative
-The Executive
-The Judicial

(with changes to all three, also based on updated electioneering)

-National Defense
-Financial sector
-social issues
-Federalism vs. Centralized Government

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Within 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary treaties. The US Constitution of 1789 is not the only document that mankind will be facing in the future. But it is time to clean this one up, for our own good.

 

[Steven_R]

I'd make it harder to pass laws (3/4 of both houses) and easier to repeal (simple majority of either House) and all laws sunset after a maximum of ten years.
Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Set up some process for the states to over-ride court rulings.
Spell out the limits of the Commerce, Spending, and Necessary Clauses and give fangs to the 9th and 10th Amendment.
All laws that apply to the people apply to every member of Congress.
Any corruption of a member of the government is an automatic life at hard labor sentence.
Resignation from current elected position to run for a different position.
Balanced Budget except in time of declared war.
Congress alone can change regulations. No more regulatory agencies defining their own parameters.
No more riders attached to bills. All provisions in a law can only deal with the purpose of the bill.
Line Item Veto.

 

[Listening]

Term Limits anyone ?

 

[Steven_R]

I'm torn on term limits. I dislike career politicians, but wouldn't want to tell the people they can't have who they want to represent them. It would have to come down to an informed population and finding a way to do away with pork politics.

I'd also do away with gerrymandering.

 

[Listening]

Somewhere in all this, I'd have collective state oversight of whatever congress is doing that might impact states.

There would be no dept of education.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Somewhere in all this, I'd have collective state oversight of whatever congress is doing that might impact states.

There would be no dept of education.

There, we would disagree.

 

[Listening]

Somewhere in all this, I'd have collective state oversight of whatever congress is doing that might impact states.

There would be no dept of education.

There, we would disagree.

I am sure it won't be the last time.

But, I am sure we do agree that education is important.

 

[regent]

At this time in our history, America could not write a Constitution. We seem unable to even pass simple laws or keep our government open at times.
The framers created a government that required a great deal of compromise and the days of compromise for the good of the nation are long over. We have become too political and we respond too easily to sheer stupidity. Nope the best we can do today is to try and keep the government we have open and sort of functioning.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

Nothing, frankly.

There’s nothing that needs to be changed, corrected, or cleared up:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The genius of the Framers was their correct understanding and intent that the Founding Document be neither ‘living’ nor ‘literal.’

The Constitution is the codification of eternal principles designed to afford each person the means by which to safeguard his civil liberties in the context of Congress’ powers both enumerated and implied, placing the greater burden upon government when it seeks to encroach upon those civil liberties, and making legitimate and binding those laws which respect those eternal principles.

Through the process of judicial review the Federal courts in good faith weigh the evidence brought before them concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and render decisions predicated on Constitutional jurisprudence in accordance with the rule of law.

The Constitution is not the ‘beginning’ or ‘start’ of anything; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, and it derives its legitimacy from that tradition, from the tenets of English common law, from the authority of judicial review as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Founding Generation, and from the primacy of the rule of law vital to the Republic.

Given these facts, it become clear why the Constitution is in no need of being changed, corrected, or cleared up.

 

[Listening]

What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

Nothing, frankly.

There’s nothing that needs to be changed, corrected, or cleared up:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The genius of the Framers was their correct understanding and intent that the Founding Document be neither ‘living’ nor ‘literal.’

The Constitution is the codification of eternal principles designed to afford each person the means by which to safeguard his civil liberties in the context of Congress’ powers both enumerated and implied, placing the greater burden upon government when it seeks to encroach upon those civil liberties, and making legitimate and binding those laws which respect those eternal principles.

Through the process of judicial review the Federal courts in good faith weigh the evidence brought before them concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and render decisions predicated on Constitutional jurisprudence in accordance with the rule of law.

The Constitution is not the ‘beginning’ or ‘start’ of anything; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, and it derives its legitimacy from that tradition, from the tenets of English common law, from the authority of judicial review as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Founding Generation, and from the primacy of the rule of law vital to the Republic.

Given these facts, it become clear why the Constitution is in no need of being changed, corrected, or cleared up.

Oh I wish it were so.

Our current Affirmative Action Moron is testing your hypothesis to the brim.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

Nothing, frankly.

There’s nothing that needs to be changed, corrected, or cleared up:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The genius of the Framers was their correct understanding and intent that the Founding Document be neither ‘living’ nor ‘literal.’

The Constitution is the codification of eternal principles designed to afford each person the means by which to safeguard his civil liberties in the context of Congress’ powers both enumerated and implied, placing the greater burden upon government when it seeks to encroach upon those civil liberties, and making legitimate and binding those laws which respect those eternal principles.

Through the process of judicial review the Federal courts in good faith weigh the evidence brought before them concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and render decisions predicated on Constitutional jurisprudence in accordance with the rule of law.

The Constitution is not the ‘beginning’ or ‘start’ of anything; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, and it derives its legitimacy from that tradition, from the tenets of English common law, from the authority of judicial review as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Founding Generation, and from the primacy of the rule of law vital to the Republic.

Given these facts, it become clear why the Constitution is in no need of being changed, corrected, or cleared up.

Oh I wish it were so.

Our current Affirmative Action Moron is testing your hypothesis to the brim.

I am pretty sure that was not aimed at me, but the question is: is such a statement allowed in the CDZ? Just asking...

 

[editec]

I'd have to rethink the sanctity in which we hold the concept of private property.


We NEED the right to own private property, but there has to be some limits on it.

And YES I totally understand how difficult it would be to have that cake and eat it, too.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'd have to rethink the sanctity in which we hold the concept of private property.


We NEED the right to own private property, but there has to be some limits on it.

And YES I totally understand how difficult it would be to have that cake and eat it, too.

yes, it is a conundrum. But a solveable one, imo.

 

[Listening]

I'd have to rethink the sanctity in which we hold the concept of private property.


We NEED the right to own private property, but there has to be some limits on it.

And YES I totally understand how difficult it would be to have that cake and eat it, too.

yes, it is a conundrum. But a solveable one, imo.

I think that if you are going to look at things like Private Property differently then you'll be rewriting the Declaration of Independence. I believe that would be an incredible challenge.

Regardless...what would you do differently with regard to Private Property.

I believe, that in addition to revisiting the constitution every 20 years...didn't Jefferson want to redistribute money every so often too.

 

[Listening]

Some additional changes....

The Bill of Rights is NOT incorporated onto the states......

Senators are appointed by state legislatures.

The House grows with the population such that each house member always represents X number of people (say 100,000).

I'd codify the electoral college (this should bring some rain).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

Nothing, frankly.

There’s nothing that needs to be changed, corrected, or cleared up:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The genius of the Framers was their correct understanding and intent that the Founding Document be neither ‘living’ nor ‘literal.’

The Constitution is the codification of eternal principles designed to afford each person the means by which to safeguard his civil liberties in the context of Congress’ powers both enumerated and implied, placing the greater burden upon government when it seeks to encroach upon those civil liberties, and making legitimate and binding those laws which respect those eternal principles.

Through the process of judicial review the Federal courts in good faith weigh the evidence brought before them concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and render decisions predicated on Constitutional jurisprudence in accordance with the rule of law.

The Constitution is not the ‘beginning’ or ‘start’ of anything; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, and it derives its legitimacy from that tradition, from the tenets of English common law, from the authority of judicial review as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Founding Generation, and from the primacy of the rule of law vital to the Republic.

Given these facts, it become clear why the Constitution is in no need of being changed, corrected, or cleared up.

Ya reminds us how you think just cause your computer is connected to the internet it is not your private papers.

 

[Listening]

What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

Nothing, frankly.

There’s nothing that needs to be changed, corrected, or cleared up:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The genius of the Framers was their correct understanding and intent that the Founding Document be neither ‘living’ nor ‘literal.’

The Constitution is the codification of eternal principles designed to afford each person the means by which to safeguard his civil liberties in the context of Congress’ powers both enumerated and implied, placing the greater burden upon government when it seeks to encroach upon those civil liberties, and making legitimate and binding those laws which respect those eternal principles.

Through the process of judicial review the Federal courts in good faith weigh the evidence brought before them concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and render decisions predicated on Constitutional jurisprudence in accordance with the rule of law.

The Constitution is not the ‘beginning’ or ‘start’ of anything; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, and it derives its legitimacy from that tradition, from the tenets of English common law, from the authority of judicial review as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Founding Generation, and from the primacy of the rule of law vital to the Republic.

Given these facts, it become clear why the Constitution is in no need of being changed, corrected, or cleared up.

Since when did dicta become "facts" ?

 

[oldfart]

What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

Two quick comments. First, the have a body of law that interprets and defines concepts in the Constitution. Would a new constitution be a tabula rasa or would it incorporate all of that body of law?

Second, there is one part of the Constitution which is unamendable, the provision that no state can be denied by amendment of its equal representation in the Senate. I believe that a replacement constitution could abolish this limit. But how could a replacement doing so get approval of 75% of the states? We have "rotten borough" situation equal to that addressed by the British in 1832.

 

[Listening]

What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

Two quick comments. First, the have a body of law that interprets and defines concepts in the Constitution. Would a new constitution be a tabula rasa or would it incorporate all of that body of law?

Second, there is one part of the Constitution which is unamendable, the provision that no state can be denied by amendment of its equal representation in the Senate. I believe that a replacement constitution could abolish this limit. But how could a replacement doing so get approval of 75% of the states? We have "rotten borough" situation equal to that addressed by the British in 1832.

Rotten Borough ? I think the question is....would people want New York essentially running the country ?