priority area for new Constitution

[nodoginnafight]

I have no problem with what we got.

 

[dcraelin]

here is a survey to determine what areas people think should be modified in the new Cosntitution

New constitution? Non starter.....dead on arrival.

Its been modified before....regardless..think of it as a debate exercise

 

[dcraelin]

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

no, the old one is flawed ..has led to the corruption we now witness at the highest levels

now for those visiting but not answering...I believe any change wanted in the constitution can be catagorized in the above 4 areas.

You forgot one: States.

as in areas left to the states, separation of powers etc....ok...can probably be addressed in the above.....but maybe should'v had in there ...to late now

 

[OKTexas]

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

no, the old one is flawed ..has led to the corruption we now witness at the highest levels

now for those visiting but not answering...I believe any change wanted in the constitution can be catagorized in the above 4 areas.

The courts have allowed the bastardization of our Constitution, what makes you think it would be different with a new one.

you could wright provisions that allow for a larger court which would make them les suseptable to coercion I think

Nope, just hold the courts to actual verbiage and original intent. It's really not that hard.

 

[dcraelin]

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

no, the old one is flawed ..has led to the corruption we now witness at the highest levels

now for those visiting but not answering...I believe any change wanted in the constitution can be catagorized in the above 4 areas.

The courts have allowed the bastardization of our Constitution, what makes you think it would be different with a new one.

you could wright provisions that allow for a larger court which would make them les suseptable to coercion I think

Nope, just hold the courts to actual verbiage and original intent. It's really not that hard.

Its been pretty hard thru the years I would say...how do you hold the court...whos doing the holding...these people are given life tenure...

The articles had a random aspect to the chosing of judges...I think this would be an improvement

 

[eagle1462010]

I can't vote on the poll as I disagree with the poll itself.

As other posters have stated it needs to be Amended fix it. The Constitution was one of the finest documents ever created. We failed to heed their warnings and the history of how countries and their Gov't fall over time. It needs to be fixed closer to the original intent.

Corruption in our Gov't and career politicians selling themselves as Whores being the primary problem. Others have already brought up these points.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

here is a survey to determine what areas people think should be modified in the new Cosntitution

I think this should probably have been put in the Constitution forum.

since you want a political answer : I wouldn't trust any of you to alter anything

 

[dcraelin]

I can't vote on the poll as I disagree with the poll itself.

As other posters have stated it needs to be Amended fix it. The Constitution was one of the finest documents ever created. We failed to heed their warnings and the history of how countries and their Gov't fall over time. It needs to be fixed closer to the original intent.

Corruption in our Gov't and career politicians selling themselves as Whores being the primary problem. Others have already brought up these points.

I agree on the primary problem, and think it can in part be lessened by dipersing power
with an expanded representation....one that would be more in line with what was imnplied by the founders...one rep per 30,000 - 40-000

 

[dcraelin]

here is a survey to determine what areas people think should be modified in the new Cosntitution

I think this should probably have been put in the Constitution forum.

since you want a political answer : I wouldn't trust any of you to alter anything

well, dont know if I could ad a poll to the new consitution thread

I dont know what you mean by "want a political answer"

 

[eagle1462010]

I can't vote on the poll as I disagree with the poll itself.

As other posters have stated it needs to be Amended fix it. The Constitution was one of the finest documents ever created. We failed to heed their warnings and the history of how countries and their Gov't fall over time. It needs to be fixed closer to the original intent.

Corruption in our Gov't and career politicians selling themselves as Whores being the primary problem. Others have already brought up these points.

I agree on the primary problem, and think it can in part be lessened by dipersing power
with an expanded representation....one that would be more in line with what was imnplied by the founders...one rep per 30,000 - 40-000

That would be over 10,000 representatives.............if by the total population..............

 

[dcraelin]

I can't vote on the poll as I disagree with the poll itself.

As other posters have stated it needs to be Amended fix it. The Constitution was one of the finest documents ever created. We failed to heed their warnings and the history of how countries and their Gov't fall over time. It needs to be fixed closer to the original intent.

Corruption in our Gov't and career politicians selling themselves as Whores being the primary problem. Others have already brought up these points.

I agree on the primary problem, and think it can in part be lessened by dipersing power
with an expanded representation....one that would be more in line with what was imnplied by the founders...one rep per 30,000 - 40-000

That would be over 10,000 representatives.............if by the total population..............

I thought it was more like 6000,...well I dont intend that they be paid that much, and wouldnt have accomodations for them in DC..they would vote from their states

 

[OKTexas]

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

no, the old one is flawed ..has led to the corruption we now witness at the highest levels

now for those visiting but not answering...I believe any change wanted in the constitution can be catagorized in the above 4 areas.

The courts have allowed the bastardization of our Constitution, what makes you think it would be different with a new one.

you could wright provisions that allow for a larger court which would make them les suseptable to coercion I think

Nope, just hold the courts to actual verbiage and original intent. It's really not that hard.

Its been pretty hard thru the years I would say...how do you hold the court...whos doing the holding...these people are given life tenure...

The articles had a random aspect to the chosing of judges...I think this would be an improvement

Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court, that would be the ultimate balance of power. Of course it would take an amendment that would never make it through the congress so the States would have to exercise article 5. Considering most State level politicians have aspirations to federal office I doubt they have the balls either.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

no, the old one is flawed ..has led to the corruption we now witness at the highest levels

now for those visiting but not answering...I believe any change wanted in the constitution can be catagorized in the above 4 areas.

The courts have allowed the bastardization of our Constitution, what makes you think it would be different with a new one.

you could wright provisions that allow for a larger court which would make them les suseptable to coercion I think

Nope, just hold the courts to actual verbiage and original intent. It's really not that hard.

Its been pretty hard thru the years I would say...how do you hold the court...whos doing the holding...these people are given life tenure...

The articles had a random aspect to the chosing of judges...I think this would be an improvement

Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court, that would be the ultimate balance of power. Of course it would take an amendment that would never make it through the congress so the States would have to exercise article 5. Considering most State level politicians have aspirations to federal office I doubt they have the balls either.

They can already do this...

through a constitutional amendment


god you people are dense sometimes

 

[OKTexas]

The courts have allowed the bastardization of our Constitution, what makes you think it would be different with a new one.

you could wright provisions that allow for a larger court which would make them les suseptable to coercion I think

Nope, just hold the courts to actual verbiage and original intent. It's really not that hard.

Its been pretty hard thru the years I would say...how do you hold the court...whos doing the holding...these people are given life tenure...

The articles had a random aspect to the chosing of judges...I think this would be an improvement

Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court, that would be the ultimate balance of power. Of course it would take an amendment that would never make it through the congress so the States would have to exercise article 5. Considering most State level politicians have aspirations to federal office I doubt they have the balls either.

They can already do this...

through a constitutional amendment


god you people are dense sometimes

Maybe you should put the bong down there dainty boy, I said they had the power, they just lack the balls. But feel free to continue to make an ass of your third person self, I need the laughs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you could wright provisions that allow for a larger court which would make them les suseptable to coercion I think

Nope, just hold the courts to actual verbiage and original intent. It's really not that hard.

Its been pretty hard thru the years I would say...how do you hold the court...whos doing the holding...these people are given life tenure...

The articles had a random aspect to the chosing of judges...I think this would be an improvement

Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court, that would be the ultimate balance of power. Of course it would take an amendment that would never make it through the congress so the States would have to exercise article 5. Considering most State level politicians have aspirations to federal office I doubt they have the balls either.

They can already do this...

through a constitutional amendment


god you people are dense sometimes

Maybe you should put the bong down there dainty boy, I said they had the power, they just lack the balls. But feel free to continue to make an ass of your third person self, I need the laughs.

Oh so sorry. Me so sorry.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

^^^^^^This.

The Constitution is fine as it is. Most of its provisions consist of commands upon the Federal government: What it must do, and what it is forbidden to do. Theonly thing it lacks, is teeth to punish Federal government people who ignore or otherwise violate those commands.

Putting such "teeth" into effect could be difficult. One possibility is for the Constitution to hold that if the Supreme Court finds an act of Congress unconstitutional, the Congressmen who voted for it are not allowed to be elected to any Federal office afterward. They may finish their current term, but must leave office at its end. But this would give Congressmen planning to retire anyway, free reign to act as unconstitutionally as some of them do today. Perhaps the ruling must be more severe: they are required to leave office within a set period (60 or 90 days or etc.), with a special election to be held to determine their replacement(s). Should the President who signed the unconstitutional act, be required to do so also?

If the President commits a unilateral act without cooperation of Congress, and that act is found unconstitutional, the same penalty applies to him alone.

What "teeth" should apply to lower officeholders (judges, Cabinet, Presidential appointees etc.)?

Lots of unanswered questions, but you see the thrust.

Don't change the commands and provisions of the Constitution, except to insert penalties upon Federal govt officials who are found by the courts to have violated it, either by an active act or by omission (ignoring its commands).

Comment?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We don't need a new constitution. Just need to follow the old one

^^^^^^This.

The Constitution is fine as it is. Most of its provisions consist of commands upon the Federal government: What it must do, and what it is forbidden to do. Theonly thing it lacks, is teeth to punish Federal government people who ignore or otherwise violate those commands.

Putting such "teeth" into effect could be difficult. One possibility is for the Constitution to hold that if the Supreme Court finds an act of Congress unconstitutional, the Congressmen who voted for it are not allowed to be elected to any Federal office afterward. They may finish their current term, but must leave office at its end. But this would give Congressmen planning to retire anyway, free reign to act as unconstitutionally as some of them do today. Perhaps the ruling must be more severe: they are required to leave office within a set period (60 or 90 days or etc.), with a special election to be held to determine their replacement(s). Should the President who signed the unconstitutional act, be required to do so also?

If the President commits a unilateral act without cooperation of Congress, and that act is found unconstitutional, the same penalty applies to him alone.

What "teeth" should apply to lower officeholders (judges, Cabinet, Presidential appointees etc.)?

Lots of unanswered questions, but you see the thrust.

Don't change the commands and provisions of the Constitution, except to insert penalties upon Federal govt officials who are found by the courts to have violated it, either by an active act or by omission (ignoring its commands).

Comment?

Good Golly! Most people would not support punishing opinions. And if some pols purposefully put forth bills they know will be ruled unconstitutional, it is up to the people they represent in the districts to decide whether they like it or not

 

[dcraelin]

The courts have allowed the bastardization of our Constitution, what makes you think it would be different with a new one.

you could wright provisions that allow for a larger court which would make them les suseptable to coercion I think

Nope, just hold the courts to actual verbiage and original intent. It's really not that hard.

Its been pretty hard thru the years I would say...how do you hold the court...whos doing the holding...these people are given life tenure...

The articles had a random aspect to the chosing of judges...I think this would be an improvement

Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court, that would be the ultimate balance of power. Of course it would take an amendment that would never make it through the congress so the States would have to exercise article 5. Considering most State level politicians have aspirations to federal office I doubt they have the balls either.

They can already do this...

through a constitutional amendment


god you people are dense sometimes

Not through a simmple majority they cant....That is an interesting idea....worth consideration

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court.”

Ignorance of, and contempt for, the rule of law as exhibited here is not justification to abandon the rule of law.

 

[dblack]

“Give a majority of the States the right to overrule the court.”

Ignorance of, and contempt for, the rule of law as exhibited here is not justification to abandon the rule of law.

Huh?? We're talking about a new constitution - i.e. changing the rule of law. I'm not sure I agree with the proposal, but it's not ignorant or contemptuous. It just doesn't give the Court the supreme power you'd prefer.