Outline of a new Constitution

[dcraelin]

a national initiative and referendum option such as many US states already have.

an expanded body of representatives more in line with the representative-to-citizen ratio we had at our founding. These would be "stay-at-home" representatives and vote on issues either in designated areas in states or by electronic/online/phone methods.

yearly for-party elections on a proportional representation basis. At the time of the founding there was a saying,'where yearly elections end tyranny begins"

The Senate would be modified so states would have voting power based on renewable resource base....the irrational current system, where Rhode Island has the same power as California would be corrected. Remember Ben Franklin didn't want a Senate at all.

The last stage of choosing Supreme Court justices would be a random selection from a pool of qualified candidates. Designated replacements would also be chosen for when Current members should recuse themselves.

In presidential elections a group of small states would vote a few weeks ahead of the others. This group would change on a rotating basis. States could not award electors in presidential elections on a winner-take-all basis.

No agreement between the US and other nations could be called anything but a treaty

 

[g5000]

a national initiative and referendum option such as many US states already have.

And then our Constitution would be as chock-a-block as the state constitutions are. Why would you want to make the amendment process easier?!?

The Senate would be modified so states would have voting power based on renewable resource base....the irrational current system, where Rhode Island has the same power as California would be corrected.

Have you ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers? The Senate is not an irrational system. Your idea certainly is, though.

 

[dcraelin]

a national initiative and referendum option such as many US states already have.

And then our Constitution would be as chock-a-block as the state constitutions are. Why would you want to make the amendment process easier?!?

The Senate would be modified so states would have voting power based on renewable resource base....the irrational current system, where Rhode Island has the same power as California would be corrected.

Have you ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers? The Senate is not an irrational system. Your idea certainly is, though.

Well I didn't say it would necessarily apply to the Constitution itself....but if it did I think it wouldnt be that messy as I see it rarely done. And I dont think State constitutions are all that bad.

The federalist papers are over-hyped..They werent well read at the time and had little effect.....and Hamilton basically turned his back on them himself when he proposed a national bank. The state boundaries were largely determined by religious differences that dont exist anymore.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's better than the system we're currently using.

 

[emilynghiem]

a national initiative and referendum option such as many US states already have.

And then our Constitution would be as chock-a-block as the state constitutions are. Why would you want to make the amendment process easier?!?

The Senate would be modified so states would have voting power based on renewable resource base....the irrational current system, where Rhode Island has the same power as California would be corrected.

Have you ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers? The Senate is not an irrational system. Your idea certainly is, though.

Well I didn't say it would necessarily apply to the Constitution itself....but if it did I think it wouldnt be that messy as I see it rarely done. And I dont think State constitutions are all that bad.

The federalist papers are over-hyped..They werent well read at the time and had little effect.....and Hamilton basically turned his back on them himself when he proposed a national bank. The state boundaries were largely determined by religious differences that dont exist anymore.

We just need to separate by party, by recognizing these parties as political religions.
They weren't written anywhere in the Constitution, and aren't checked.

So whatever agenda or BELIEFS these parties have, keep them out of govt
unless people agree by consensus. If there is any dissension over an issue of political beliefs,
then kick it back into mediation and force a consensus if there is going to be any law or reform passed.
If no agreement on an issue of belief, then keep it private.

 

[dcraelin]

a national initiative and referendum option such as many US states already have.

And then our Constitution would be as chock-a-block as the state constitutions are. Why would you want to make the amendment process easier?!?

The Senate would be modified so states would have voting power based on renewable resource base....the irrational current system, where Rhode Island has the same power as California would be corrected.

Have you ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers? The Senate is not an irrational system. Your idea certainly is, though.

Well I didn't say it would necessarily apply to the Constitution itself....but if it did I think it wouldnt be that messy as I see it rarely done. And I dont think State constitutions are all that bad.

The federalist papers are over-hyped..They werent well read at the time and had little effect.....and Hamilton basically turned his back on them himself when he proposed a national bank. The state boundaries were largely determined by religious differences that dont exist anymore.

We just need to separate by party, by recognizing these parties as political religions.
They weren't written anywhere in the Constitution, and aren't checked.

So whatever agenda or BELIEFS these parties have, keep them out of govt
unless people agree by consensus. If there is any dissension over an issue of political beliefs,
then kick it back into mediation and force a consensus if there is going to be any law or reform passed.
If no agreement on an issue of belief, then keep it private.

not sure I follow,...but it is natural and inevitable that political parties will form in a system like ours. I see part of the problem being when candidates run on a party line and then dont follow that line in Congress. (ie. RINOS AND DINOS) My proposal would have yearly elections so voters could vote against any party with perceived turncoats. Internal party discipline would then keep more of them in line.

Religious differences were a large part in forming the boundaries of the early states....this led to a irrational Senate in which RI has the same power as Texas or California. In a way you could say The Senate represents old religious differences. This should not be.

 

[emilynghiem]

a national initiative and referendum option such as many US states already have.

And then our Constitution would be as chock-a-block as the state constitutions are. Why would you want to make the amendment process easier?!?

The Senate would be modified so states would have voting power based on renewable resource base....the irrational current system, where Rhode Island has the same power as California would be corrected.

Have you ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers? The Senate is not an irrational system. Your idea certainly is, though.

Well I didn't say it would necessarily apply to the Constitution itself....but if it did I think it wouldnt be that messy as I see it rarely done. And I dont think State constitutions are all that bad.

The federalist papers are over-hyped..They werent well read at the time and had little effect.....and Hamilton basically turned his back on them himself when he proposed a national bank. The state boundaries were largely determined by religious differences that dont exist anymore.

We just need to separate by party, by recognizing these parties as political religions.
They weren't written anywhere in the Constitution, and aren't checked.

So whatever agenda or BELIEFS these parties have, keep them out of govt
unless people agree by consensus. If there is any dissension over an issue of political beliefs,
then kick it back into mediation and force a consensus if there is going to be any law or reform passed.
If no agreement on an issue of belief, then keep it private.

not sure I follow,...but it is natural and inevitable that political parties will form in a system like ours. I see part of the problem being when candidates run on a party line and then dont follow that line in Congress. (ie. RINOS AND DINOS) My proposal would have yearly elections so voters could vote against any party with perceived turncoats. Internal party discipline would then keep more of them in line.

Religious differences were a large part in forming the boundaries of the early states....this led to a irrational Senate in which RI has the same power as Texas or California. In a way you could say The Senate represents old religious differences. This should not be.

Recognize the parties as the equivalent of religious institutions, but with secular or political beliefs.
And agree that such beliefs cannot be established by govt without consent of the public, to ensure that
one group's beliefs aren't imposed on others by majority rule of that group.

If beliefs are involved in a public policy, then agree it has to be written and passed by consensus
to avoid a bias in belief from being imposed unconstitutionally, to the exclusion or discrimination against a dissenting belief.

We need to start treating political beliefs equally as other religious beliefs, even if the language is secular.
This may or may not require a Constitutional amendment or clarification.
If so, I have proposals for that also, and would likely lead to separate systems by party, divided by beliefs,
where only the agreed public policies and programs remain in govt, and anything in conflict due to beliefs
is agreed to be delegated back to the States, people, and/or parties to reorganize that way to represent people equally.

 

[dcraelin]

a national initiative and referendum option such as many US states already have.

And then our Constitution would be as chock-a-block as the state constitutions are. Why would you want to make the amendment process easier?!?

The Senate would be modified so states would have voting power based on renewable resource base....the irrational current system, where Rhode Island has the same power as California would be corrected.

Have you ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers? The Senate is not an irrational system. Your idea certainly is, though.

Well I didn't say it would necessarily apply to the Constitution itself....but if it did I think it wouldnt be that messy as I see it rarely done. And I dont think State constitutions are all that bad.

The federalist papers are over-hyped..They werent well read at the time and had little effect.....and Hamilton basically turned his back on them himself when he proposed a national bank. The state boundaries were largely determined by religious differences that dont exist anymore.

We just need to separate by party, by recognizing these parties as political religions.
They weren't written anywhere in the Constitution, and aren't checked.

So whatever agenda or BELIEFS these parties have, keep them out of govt
unless people agree by consensus. If there is any dissension over an issue of political beliefs,
then kick it back into mediation and force a consensus if there is going to be any law or reform passed.
If no agreement on an issue of belief, then keep it private.

not sure I follow,...but it is natural and inevitable that political parties will form in a system like ours. I see part of the problem being when candidates run on a party line and then dont follow that line in Congress. (ie. RINOS AND DINOS) My proposal would have yearly elections so voters could vote against any party with perceived turncoats. Internal party discipline would then keep more of them in line.

Religious differences were a large part in forming the boundaries of the early states....this led to a irrational Senate in which RI has the same power as Texas or California. In a way you could say The Senate represents old religious differences. This should not be.

Recognize the parties as the equivalent of religious institutions, but with secular or political beliefs.
And agree that such beliefs cannot be established by govt without consent of the public, to ensure that
one group's beliefs aren't imposed on others by majority rule of that group.

If beliefs are involved in a public policy, then agree it has to be written and passed by consensus
to avoid a bias in belief from being imposed unconstitutionally, to the exclusion or discrimination against a dissenting belief.

We need to start treating political beliefs equally as other religious beliefs, even if the language is secular.
This may or may not require a Constitutional amendment or clarification.
If so, I have proposals for that also, and would likely lead to separate systems by party, divided by beliefs,
where only the agreed public policies and programs remain in govt, and anything in conflict due to beliefs
is agreed to be delegated back to the States, people, and/or parties to reorganize that way to represent people equally.

When you designate things be passed by consensus you are asking for gridlock...and existing inequities/problems get set in stone.... You have to trust the will of the majority to correct itself if it goes over the top. See my pic-quote, in my gallery, of Jefferson and his thoughts on this.

 

[FA_Q2]

This again. Did we not already tear apart your idea that any part of representation should be rooted in ‘resources’ or was that another poster?

 

[dcraelin]

This again. Did we not already tear apart your idea that any part of representation should be rooted in ‘resources’ or was that another poster?

This brings in more topics....and you never tore it apart...The existing Senate is based largely on old religious differences in the east....but apparently your ok with that.

 

[Anathema]

The easiest way to fix the current political issues in the US would be to do what we tried to do in 1860.... split the nation into two separate countries and be done with it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The easiest way to fix the current political issues in the US would be to do what we tried to do in 1860.... split the nation into two separate countries and be done with it.

The problem with that is the right's country would thrive while the left's would be crushed under Socialism.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

 

[Anathema]

The problem with that is the right's country would thrive while the left's would be crushed under Socialism.

That's the Left's problem. I tend to believe that people need to pay for their crimes.... phyical, mental, and philosophical/political. This would be an excellent way to ensure the Left pays for their crimes against humanity and nature.

 

[hangover]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

You have no clue how many times the constitution has been amended. And, and, and, we're living in the 21st century now, not the 1800's. I know cons don't believe in evolution, that's why they will be left behind.

But as far as a new constitution, that's a laugh. It take 75% of both houses and the states to even get an amendment, and they can't even agree on what color the sky is.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

You have no clue how many times the constitution has been amended. And, and, and, we're living in the 21st century now, not the 1800's. I know cons don't believe in evolution, that's why they will be left behind.

Get lost idiot, you don't even know history and expect me to take you serious on Constitutional issues? Pulease, reject

 

[hangover]

The easiest way to fix the current political issues in the US would be to do what we tried to do in 1860.... split the nation into two separate countries and be done with it.

Tried that during the Civil War, didn't work.

 

[hangover]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

You have no clue how many times the constitution has been amended. And, and, and, we're living in the 21st century now, not the 1800's. I know cons don't believe in evolution, that's why they will be left behind.

Get lost idiot, you don't even know history and expect me to take you serious on Constitutional issues? Pulease, reject

I know you are, but what am I? NA NA NA NA NA!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

You have no clue how many times the constitution has been amended. And, and, and, we're living in the 21st century now, not the 1800's. I know cons don't believe in evolution, that's why they will be left behind.

Get lost idiot, you don't even know history and expect me to take you serious on Constitutional issues? Pulease, reject

I know you are, but what am I? NA NA NA NA NA!

Dude grow up, serious just grow up already.