If We Rewrote The Constitution...

[kaz]

You would have thought that John would have known that freedom of religion requires separation of church and state.

Other than that, he was, certainly welcome to all of his opinions.

I'm sure that the Taliban, for instance, has many such opinions about the opposite of freedom of religion.

There is no separation of church and State in the Constitution. That didn't happen until the 20th century when the Supreme Court added it to the Constitution through judicial fiat.

It is pretty clear in the Constitution that there will be no state religion. As well as just common sense. There is not freedom of religion unless the state is out of the business.

True but that doesn't contradict that there is no separation of church and State in the Constitution.

 

[kaz]

You choose to live in a fantasy. Your choice. It must like visiting Disney World if you are a kid.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Well put! While we may disagree on what should be the outcome of judicial review, I would never want to see the US Constitution rewritten. There is a means established to ammend it. That's all we need.
Can you imagine a Constitution written today? It would take 2 tractor trailers to move a single copy.

 

[Listening]

Folks;

Looking at a question like this was supposed to gen up ideas about things could be improved.

I did not ask if we should totally scrap this one (as some have stupidly implied). I asked "IF" we rewrote it.

That could be done in several ways...but my question is what would you do differently.

If that could be done with the amendment process....great.

And to the right...WTF good does it do to rewrite it if we leave the same asswipe court system in place.

I'd make sure "Judical Review" was lilmited to just what was written...not to what wasn't written or what the Men=-In-Black think should have been written.

 

[PMZ]

Folks;

Looking at a question like this was supposed to gen up ideas about things could be improved.

I did not ask if we should totally scrap this one (as some have stupidly implied). I asked "IF" we rewrote it.

That could be done in several ways...but my question is what would you do differently.

If that could be done with the amendment process....great.

And to the right...WTF good does it do to rewrite it if we leave the same asswipe court system in place.

I'd make sure "Judical Review" was lilmited to just what was written...not to what wasn't written or what the Men=-In-Black think should have been written.

" I'd make sure "Judical Review" was lilmited to just what was written..."

It is.

"not to what wasn't written"

It isn't.

"or what the Men=-In-Black think should have been written."

They are eminently qualified. Whereas you have an agenda to impose on America.

Giving you any role but whining would have exactly the same results as trashing it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

All solid.
None will pass as the liberals will oppose the tooth fang and claw.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Folks;

Looking at a question like this was supposed to gen up ideas about things could be improved.

I did not ask if we should totally scrap this one (as some have stupidly implied). I asked "IF" we rewrote it.

That could be done in several ways...but my question is what would you do differently.

If that could be done with the amendment process....great.

And to the right...WTF good does it do to rewrite it if we leave the same asswipe court system in place.

I'd make sure "Judical Review" was lilmited to just what was written...not to what wasn't written or what the Men=-In-Black think should have been written.

" I'd make sure "Judical Review" was lilmited to just what was written..."
It is.
"not to what wasn't written"
It isn't.

I see you have yet to read Roe v Wade.
It -explicitly- infers things into the constitution that are not written into it anywhere.

 

[FA_Q2]

Return the election of senators back to state legislators.

Outlaw political parties (while possibly funding elections publically).

Define the number of SCOTUS judges (so there are no more ‘packing’ events) and limit the terms that they serve with very LONG terms like 30 years. At the same time they would be spaced out so that a single president/congress would not be rotating more than a single judge.

More clearly define the second amendment, the supremacy clause and the general welfare clause.

Make it illegal for the federal government to block grant money to the states.

Set limits on how districts lines are drawn to eliminate gerrymandering.

Make tax rates even and eliminate the power for congress to provide special tax rates, breaks, credits or any other benefit whatsoever in the tax code.

Return the tenth amendment to being meaningful again (clearer separation of powers though point 4 is essentially the same thing)

Eliminate the electoral college.

That is for a start.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's interesting that conservatives, always patting themselves on the back for being strong Constitutionalists, want more than liberals to change it.

Completely false.

Liberals have ALREADY changed it. It is routinely disregarded because it is inconvenient. Hence the ‘living’ document that liberals are always trying to push.

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to Republicans anyhow.

I personally fail to see how eliminating redlining caused a housing boom or bust or the collapse of Wall Street or US auto.

Um, yeah, when I added in Slick and Harry (and Nancy et al), I was referring of course specifically to redlining. What else could I be referring to that Democrats caused the recession other than redlining? Wow, you went right to the heart of it.

It seems that ultra low interest rates in good times, giving business the option to create risky mortgages, disguise the risk, the sell it, are much more root causes. As is tax cuts to the wealthy in the face of megabucks for holy wars.

There was also that Slick brought Financial Services CEOs in and told them if they didn't make sub-prime loans they'd be endlessly hauled into endless Congressional witch hunts.

Let's get some evidence on that. Bet you can't.

Irony: You asking someone to back up their claims with a sound argument when you yourself refuse to do so.

 

[kaz]

Um, yeah, when I added in Slick and Harry (and Nancy et al), I was referring of course specifically to redlining. What else could I be referring to that Democrats caused the recession other than redlining? Wow, you went right to the heart of it.





There was also that Slick brought Financial Services CEOs in and told them if they didn't make sub-prime loans they'd be endlessly hauled into endless Congressional witch hunts.

Let's get some evidence on that. Bet you can't.

Irony: You asking someone to back up their claims with a sound argument when you yourself refuse to do so.

So you're not persuaded by the inherent truth of liberalism? Hmm..neither am I...

 

[Listening]

I got this e-mail from a group I am in. This comes from Eagle Forum:

We already have a U.S. Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we don’t need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians are not obeying it and judges are indulging in too much activism. The idea that adding new words to the Constitution to require balancing the federal budget, or to get Congress to respect the jurisdiction of the states, is delusionary. The only thing more outlandish is the fanciful notion that a new convention can adopt such requirements while avoiding other mistakes.
Don’t you remember who won the 2012 election? Obama has the ground game and the technology to elect delegates and create general havoc. The most influential players in any new convention would be Big Media giving us round-the-clock television coverage. Outside the hall, demonstrators would hold court demanding constitutional changes. These would be staged by gay activists and their opponents, pro-abortionists and pro-lifers, radical feminists, the environmentalists, gun control advocates, animal rights extremists, D.C. Statehood agitators, those who want to relax immigration and those who would restrict it – all demanding consideration of amendments to recognize their so-called rights.
Have you attended a Republican National Convention or a Democratic National Convention? Did you see the chairman of the 2012 Democratic National Convention falsely call the result of the vote on putting "God" in their Platform? And get by with his dishonest call? That’s the power of the gavel at any big convention.

Now imagine holding the Republican and Democratic National Conventions at the same time and in the same hall. Imagine the confrontations of partisan politicians and pressure groups, the clash of liberals and conservatives, and the tirades of the activists — all demanding that their view of constitutional issues prevail. Imagine the gridlock as the Obama supporters try to work out a constitutional change with Republicans.

The only rules we have for a new convention (variously called an Article V convention or a constitutional convention) are that if two-thirds (34) of the states pass resolutions calling for it, then Congress has the authority to issue the Call for a convention to consider "amendments" (in the plural). There are no other rules in the Constitution or in federal law to limit the convention’s purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates. For example, we don’t know if the Call will prescribe one-state-one-vote or apportionment by population (like Congress). The whole process would be a prescription for political chaos, controversy, confrontation, litigation, and judicial activism.

Many prestigious constitutional authorities say it is impossible for Congress or anyone else, such as state legislatures, to restrict what a convention called under Article V can do. The late Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda."

Powerful and politically active pressure groups, from both the right and the left, are working for significant constitutional changes including changes in the First Amendment’s treatment of religion, getting rid of the Electoral College, term limitation, and modifying our Separation of Powers to move us toward a parliamentary form of government.

It is not credible that politically active groups, such as the same-sex marriage lobby, would pass up the chance to force a convention to vote for their special interest. It’s not believable that the powerful forces working to take away our right to own guns would overlook a golden opportunity to rescind the Second Amendment. The confusion, uncertainty, and court cases involved in a convention would make us look foolish in the eyes of the world and make people wonder if our American system of government will survive.

The miracle of our great United States Constitution is that it has lasted for more than two centuries, accommodating our great geographic and economic expansion and political problems, while preserving individual liberties. I don’t see any James Madisons, George Washingtons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as was done in 1787, and I’m very concerned about the politicians who think they can improve on our Founding Fathers.

 

[Jackson]

I have watched Congress where Senators and Congresspeople are making speeches to no one and hours are wasted on naming one building after another when it could be done in one long order. Something has to change. Everyone knows it is a do nothing Congress. This time could be used reviewing programs that are ineffective an d repealing them.

I don't know if this is possible, but I would like an amendment reorganizing Congress. I would like it mandatory that Congress be in session 4 days a week, from 9am to 4pm with committee work from 5 pm to 9pm. It is mandatory that every Congressperson be in the hall during speeches and orders of business are going on.

On Fridays, they can be in their office meeting with constituents and interested parties.

 

[BobPlumb]

Republicans need to run nationwide advertisements of the false call made during the vote at the democrat to put "God" in the platform before the 2014 elections.

 

[BobPlumb]

I have watched Congress where Senators and Congresspeople are making speeches to no one and hours are wasted on naming one building after another when it could be done in one long order. Something has to change. Everyone knows it is a do nothing Congress. This time could be used reviewing programs that are ineffective an d repealing them.

I don't know if this is possible, but I would like an amendment reorganizing Congress. I would like it mandatory that Congress be in session 4 days a week, from 9am to 4pm with committee work from 5 pm to 9pm. It is mandatory that every Congressperson be in the hall during speeches and orders of business are going on.

On Fridays, they can be in their office meeting with constituents and interested parties.

I fill safer when congress is not in session.

 

[auditor0007]

Term Limits anyone ?

No! Voters have the power to limit their representative's terms already. I do not even like term limiting the president.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

What if property ownership were limited to living, breathing American Citizens and the Government?

If that factory in the midwest were owned by an individual instead of a corporation looking for a tax shelter, wouldn't it become productive once again?

Should so much agricultural property in Hawaii and California be held by Japanese corporations?

 

[AVG-JOE]

What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

I would add an amendment that was related to the way Presidential and Congressional campaigns were financed. This would have to be well thought out (however) and would likely require some complex structures that don't create a lot of unintended side-effects.

Right now, rich & powerful individuals have special and exclusive access to our lawmakers due to the fact they can provide them with huge sums of change to get reelected. If you could somehow curb this so that everyone participating in the democracy had a somewhat equal "value", the politician would be forced to give an ear to ALL citizens. I can't see how this would be a bad thing.

And if campaign financing was uniform and set in stone (ie you are only allowed X), the politician wouldn't have to spend so much time worrying about raising money (more time for doing their job!). Currently I believe 30% of a politician's time (on average) is devoted to this.

The trick is not to try to limit the speech of those who can afford it, the trick is to limit the favoritism that those donations can buy. If congress was stripped of their power to give tax breaks to individuals and organizations, and stripped of their power to spend beyond what they're willing to collect in the here and now, who in their right mind would want to donate millions to a campaign?

 

[BobPlumb]

I have watched Congress where Senators and Congresspeople are making speeches to no one and hours are wasted on naming one building after another when it could be done in one long order. Something has to change. Everyone knows it is a do nothing Congress. This time could be used reviewing programs that are ineffective an d repealing them.

I don't know if this is possible, but I would like an amendment reorganizing Congress. I would like it mandatory that Congress be in session 4 days a week, from 9am to 4pm with committee work from 5 pm to 9pm. It is mandatory that every Congressperson be in the hall during speeches and orders of business are going on.

On Fridays, they can be in their office meeting with constituents and interested parties.

I fill safer when congress is not in session.

Actually I will feel safer.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Would anyone vote to get rid of the federal income tax ?

If so, how would you fund the federal governmemt.

I'd keep it. And I'd make everyone pay 2% regardless. That means you pay 2% up front....regardless if you have deductions past that. And no matter how small your income.

Everyone pays 18% with one and only one $40,000 deduction. No federal income taxes on businesses, just a 3% sales tax.