Outline of a new Constitution

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no need for a new Constitution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

^^ THIS ^^ The Best Idea I have seen on US Governance, in terms of modifying such to meet modernity, in my lifetime.

Within the scope of that, ALL FORM OF COMPENSATION TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, should be CEASED. And that most decidedly includes pensions...

There's absolutely NO REASON that anyone should have to travel to DC to legislate. None...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no need for a new Constitution.

True... There is only the need to strip the Constitution of all amendments beyond amendment 10. And to dial the Ideological Left out of US Governance, ENTIRELY.

That way the US Constitution would work as it was designed, absent the spurious, subjective 'interpretation' of the intellectually less fortunate.

 

[Anathema]

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

Mr. Lincoln never gave it a chance to work or to fail on its own. Instead he decided to invade a legitimate nation because he was butt-hurt about the fact that they didn't agree with his way of looking at things.

 

[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!

Dude grow up, serious just grow up already.

You're the one playing in the sandbox, with your name calling.

 

[hangover]

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

Mr. Lincoln never gave it a chance to work or to fail on its own. Instead he decided to invade a legitimate nation because he was butt-hurt about the fact that they didn't agree with his way of looking at things.

Lincoln was a bigot that tried to deport all the blacks to Panama and Haiti after the war. His real reason for the war was a true GOP cause,...for the benefit of CORPORATE AMERICA. All the corporations were in the north and the raw materials were in the south. Corporations were getting all the profits and the south resented it, that's why they tried to secede.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

^^ THIS ^^ The Best Idea I have seen on US Governance, in terms of modifying such to meet modernity, in my lifetime.

Within the scope of that, ALL FORM OF COMPENSATION TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, should be CEASED. And that most decidedly includes pensions...

There's absolutely NO REASON that anyone should have to travel to DC to legislate. None...

Well I dont think ALL FORMS of compensation should be ceased but I envisioned being paid only equivalent to part-time workers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

^ This!!

Follow the one we have in place!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

^^ THIS ^^ The Best Idea I have seen on US Governance, in terms of modifying such to meet modernity, in my lifetime.

Within the scope of that, ALL FORM OF COMPENSATION TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, should be CEASED. And that most decidedly includes pensions...

There's absolutely NO REASON that anyone should have to travel to DC to legislate. None...

Well I dont think ALL FORMS of compensation should be ceased but I envisioned being paid only equivalent to part-time workers.

Well if you can work that out I'll take it.

But I say that Leadership should not be compensated. Such is the duty of those with the means... proving their leadership capabilities and the desire to impart their valuable, effective skills to government, which they do in the sense of duty and not the sense of profit.

The type of people that you'd get would be raised exponentially and it would dial out of government the likes of Harry Ried, Shiela Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters and John Conyers, opportunist malcontent idiots, EVERY ONE!

Edit: I appreciate the 'funny' props, but I am being entirely serious.

 

[dcraelin]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

^ This!!

Follow the one we have in place!

We do ( in most things, tho the treaty thing is an exception) and its led to corruption and waste at the highest levels.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

^ This!!

Follow the one we have in place!

I disagree... the one we have now has been b a s t e r d i z e d... from the original. Strip away all amendments beyond 10 and THEN what we would have would be fine. Of course that would require stripping a large percentage of SCOTUS decisions from the books and there is no downside to that.

 

[dcraelin]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

^ This!!

Follow the one we have in place!

I disagree... the one we have now has been b a s t e r d i z e d... from the original. Strip away all amendments beyond 10 and THEN what we would have would be fine. Of course that would require stripping a large percentage of SCOTUS decisions from the books and there is no downside to that.

Actually, generally, I would say slow incremental change is how things like law should be changed. I like the amendments in that they were focused change. Each change was debated and examined for how it fit into the system....It was, ironically, the body of the Constitution itself that didnt receive the scrutiny that it deserved.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

There is no rational basis for any of this..

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

I'm kinda getting used to our constitutional Oligarchy!!!

 

[jwoodie]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

^ This!!

Follow the one we have in place!

I disagree... the one we have now has been b a s t e r d i z e d... from the original. Strip away all amendments beyond 10 and THEN what we would have would be fine. Of course that would require stripping a large percentage of SCOTUS decisions from the books and there is no downside to that.

You're both right. State sovereignty has been usurped by the federal government, whose powers have been usurped by the Executive Branch and SCOTUS. A few of the additional Amendments should be kept or updated, but main the objective should be to restrict federal power to tax and spend and to limit judicial interpretations of rights to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I can think of a few more, but I would leave that up to a Constitutional Convention.

 

[dcraelin]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

^ This!!

Follow the one we have in place!

I disagree... the one we have now has been b a s t e r d i z e d... from the original. Strip away all amendments beyond 10 and THEN what we would have would be fine. Of course that would require stripping a large percentage of SCOTUS decisions from the books and there is no downside to that.

You're both right. State sovereignty has been usurped by the federal government, whose powers have been usurped by the Executive Branch and SCOTUS. A few of the additional Amendments should be kept or updated, but main the objective should be to restrict federal power to tax and spend and to limit judicial interpretations of rights to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I can think of a few more, but I would leave that up to a Constitutional Convention.

one of the most effective limits you can place on government is to disperse power as with the referendum power. It would be intersting to see if the states that allow that have cheaper government than those that dont, I would think that is generally the case.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

The Senate is part of the Checks and Balances giving States a Equal voice in one Branch of Gov't.............

What you are prescribing is a PURE DEMOCRACY...............where 50 plus one can dictate terms to 50 minus 1.

We are a Republic....................Not a pure Democracy.........for a reason............and it should not be changed.

 

[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.

The Senate is part of the Checks and Balances giving States a Equal voice in one Branch of Gov't.............

What you are prescribing is a PURE DEMOCRACY...............where 50 plus one can dictate terms to 50 minus 1.

We are a Republic....................Not a pure Democracy.........for a reason............and it should not be changed.

your definition of republic is wrong, see my pics gallery for founding quotes demonstrating that.

I am not prescribing a pure democracy/republic but I am getting closer...which is a good thing...

As Jefferson said the will of the majority is the only sure guardian of the rights of man.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

The Senate is part of the Checks and Balances giving States a Equal voice in one Branch of Gov't.............

What you are prescribing is a PURE DEMOCRACY...............where 50 plus one can dictate terms to 50 minus 1.

We are a Republic....................Not a pure Democracy.........for a reason............and it should not be changed.

your definition of republic is wrong, see my pics gallery for founding quotes demonstrating that.

I am not prescribing a pure democracy/republic but I am getting closer...which is a good thing...

As Jefferson said the will of the majority is the only sure guardian of the rights of man.

Read the federalist papers and get some more data..........specifically Madison................

It was a compromise, to ensure equal representation of States as part of the checks on the power of gov't.

 

[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.

The Senate is part of the Checks and Balances giving States a Equal voice in one Branch of Gov't.............

What you are prescribing is a PURE DEMOCRACY...............where 50 plus one can dictate terms to 50 minus 1.

We are a Republic....................Not a pure Democracy.........for a reason............and it should not be changed.

your definition of republic is wrong, see my pics gallery for founding quotes demonstrating that.

I am not prescribing a pure democracy/republic but I am getting closer...which is a good thing...

As Jefferson said the will of the majority is the only sure guardian of the rights of man.

Read the federalist papers and get some more data..........specifically Madison................

It was a compromise, to ensure equal representation of States as part of the checks on the power of gov't.

yes, I know what it was, but it made no sense then other then expediency. It is now time to correct it. way past time actually.