what would you change about the US Constitution?

I would add an amendment that says that the federal Constitution shall be strictly construed against the federal government so that federal powers are limited to those affirmatively conveyed upon them, as opposed to the alternative view that the Feds can do anything that is not expressly forbidden by the constitution.

It's already in there. The Tenth Amendment. The problem is that the federal government refuse to obey the Tenth Amendment.
 
It is not easy to change the Constitution of the country but however...
Let's get the easiest one out of the way and throw out the electoral college. It's buggery. Beyond that there are clearly some issues with our population that need help (More informed voters, impartial media, etc) that could be fixed, but regarding actual text of the Constitution, what would you change if you had one free amendment to push through?

If I could change one thing about the Constitution, I'd give it some teeth.

The Constitution is the highest law in this nation,and every public servant, as a condition of his job, swears an oath to uphold and defend it.

Yet we have legislators who knowingly write bills that violate the Constitution, we have executives who sign those bills into law, we have judges who uphold these laws, we have law-enforcement officers who enforce these laws,and countless other public servants who act in various ways against the Constitution—all in violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution; and never are they held accountable for this.

As it stands, there is only one crime that is defined in the Constitution, and that is treason. If I could have one new amendment ratified, it would be to define a second crime, comparable in seriousness to treason, which would consists of any public servant, acting in connection with his position in any way, either willfully or negligently, that violates the Constitution. I would specify a minimum penalty of twenty years in prison per violation, consecutive, along with a lifetime ban on ever again holding any position or job in government. The tricky part, which someone would have to think up and include in this amendment, would be to set up a means of enforcing it, that avoids the situation of the fox guarding the henhouse.


I think the problem arises from an error that was made by the original authors. They set up our government in three branches, and with divisions within each branch. If an unconstitutional bill were to pass one house of Congress, it was supposed to be stopped in the other house. If it made out through both houses, the President was supposed to veto it. If the President signed it into law, law-enforcement officers were supposed to refuse to enforce it. If someone was arrested for violating it, the judge was supposed to throw the charge out when it came to trial, and failing that, the jury was supposed to refuse to convict.

The various branches and divisions were supposed to act as a check on one another, so that no unconstitutional act could be carried out, as long as one person somewhere along the chain of events needed to complete that act, recognized that it was unconstitutional, and refused to carry it out.

Instead of acting as a check on one another, the various branches and divisions have,instead, colluded together against us. Every branch, every division, in the chain, from writing a bill that overtly violates the Constitution, all the way to sending someone to prison for violating the resulting law, simply lets the unconstitutional act pass through, its hands, failing to do its duty to stop it.
 
The whole Constitution needs to be written over according to the modern age.

I would like a new constitution that models the U.S. government after the British parliamentary system. However I think we should wait until the United States' electorate is less polarized.
 
The United States Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I would reword this so that it protects religious freedom and open political debate and discussion, without authorizing unlimited campaign contributions. I would leave questions about a religious presence in the government, burning the American flag, and pornography up to the voters.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I would repeal this.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I would repeal this. It is too vague.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I would repeal this amendment. It could be used to overrun most of the economic, environmental and civil rights legislation passed since 1900.

-----------

I would add an amendment giving the President line item veto power.

I would also add an amendment restricting the power of the Supreme Court. This would authorize recall elections to remove unpopular justices. It would require a two thirds majority to make any Supreme Court decision. It would make it possible for any Supreme Court decision to be over run by a two thirds vote in each house of Congress and a presidential signature. There would be no time limit for this, so it would be possible to over run Supreme Court decisions made in the past.

The purposes of each of my changes would be to make the U.S. government more democratic by empowering the voters and reducing if not eliminating the power of money.

The minorities I care about are Jews and Orientals. These are doing well in the United States. Therefore I do not care about minority rights.

 
Last edited:
I would like a new constitution that models the U.S. government after the British parliamentary system. However I think we should wait until the United States' electorate is less polarized.

Not being like the British was a major point of the founding of this nation. Why would you want us to go so far backward?

I think the American Revolution was a mistake. Once it started I wish the British won. By every criteria other than climate I think Canada is a better country than the United States.

 
The Constitution is, for the most part, just fine as it is. The big problem is not with the Constitution itself, but with corrupt, evil politicians who refuse to obey it.

The politicians that you think are corrupt and evil are doing what the people who elect them want them to do.

The Constitution is nothing more than a loose guidebook on how to operate a democracy. Most of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed since 1900 violates the Tenth Amendment. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has had the sense to ignore the Tenth Amendment.
 
Revise the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the several states to keep and bear arms, and of the people trained by officers appointed by each states Governor, shall not be infringed.

Clear, concise and capable of keeping guns out of the hands of those who should never have them in their possession, and allowing for necessary and proper regulations of arms.

Re-title the Preamble to:

Mission and Vision Statement

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and" equal treatment under the law, regardless of their gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or wealth.
 
Last edited:
I would like a new constitution that models the U.S. government after the British parliamentary system. However I think we should wait until the United States' electorate is less polarized.

Not being like the British was a major point of the founding of this nation. Why would you want us to go so far backward?

I think the American Revolution was a mistake. Once it started I wish the British won. By every criteria other than climate I think Canada is a better country than the United States.



Feel free, then, to emigrate to Canada or the UK, if either place will have you. You'd probably be happier in either of those other nations, and America would certainly be better without you.
 
I would like a new constitution that models the U.S. government after the British parliamentary system. However I think we should wait until the United States' electorate is less polarized.

Not being like the British was a major point of the founding of this nation. Why would you want us to go so far backward?

I think the American Revolution was a mistake. Once it started I wish the British won. By every criteria other than climate I think Canada is a better country than the United States.



Feel free, then, to emigrate to Canada or the UK, if either place will have you. You'd probably be happier in either of those other nations, and America would certainly be better without you.


Not responsive to the OP question. It's always easy to attack the person, it's the rare ad hominem purveyor who has ideas or the ability to offer substantive responses, especially on wedge issues.
 
I'll play.

I would differentiate residents and citizens in the Constitution. All residents, native born or naturalized, inherit civil rights and equal protection under the law. However all residents (even if native-born) still have to pass a civics test to become 'full citizens' in order to vote or participate in a jury.

*

Half the time I'm thinking that people should have to do a year or two in the military as well before getting the right to vote in federal elections...
 
I'll play.

I would differentiate residents and citizens in the Constitution. All residents, native born or naturalized, inherit civil rights and equal protection under the law. However all residents (even if native-born) still have to pass a civics test to become 'full citizens' in order to vote or participate in a jury.

*

Half the time I'm thinking that people should have to do a year or two in the military as well before getting the right to vote in federal elections...

A test to vote isn't democratic, and not everyone is fit to serve in the military.

I had civics in 8th grade social studies, and Civics in a class for seniors in high school (BTW, one needed to pass civics and pass a swimming test to earn the HS Diploma in San Francisco).

I agree, every American, born or naturalized, between 16 and 46 should be required to complete a two year stint in service to America.

A boot camp of sorts might be included as part of a senior civics class in high school, giving an overview of the types of service available and the skills, training and or higher education necessary to work in the field they may want to choose.
 
Revise the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the several states to keep and bear arms, and of the people trained by officers appointed by each states Governor, shall not be infringed.

Clear, concise and capable of keeping guns out of the hands of those who should never have them in their possession, and allowing for necessary and proper regulations of arms.

Re-title the Preamble to:

Mission and Vision Statement

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and" equal treatment under the law, regardless of their gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or wealth.

Post Script:

In re the Second Amendment, I need to add the highlighted phrase:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the several states to keep and bear arms, and of the people RECRUITED AND TRAINED by officers appointed by each states Governor, shall not be infringed.
 
I'd clearly define the federal governments ability to invest in our own nation! ;) This would make sure we always have the best science, infrastructure and r&d on earth!

America built its self into a super power based on this and our strong private sector.
 
The Constitution is, for the most part, just fine as it is. The big problem is not with the Constitution itself, but with corrupt, evil politicians who refuse to obey it.

The politicians that you think are corrupt and evil are doing what the people who elect them want them to do.

The Constitution is nothing more than a loose guidebook on how to operate a democracy. Most of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed since 1900 violates the Tenth Amendment. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has had the sense to ignore the Tenth Amendment.


The fact that we're a world power and a leader is somehow a evil thing to the loserterians. We lead in science...This wouldn't be happening in their world! We have nation wide infrastructure...Forgot this in their sick little world...We have regulations for business and workers rights. Oh'soo evil and wrong within their sick little mind. Lets bring back the nobility they scream!

I think the 18th century needs to remain in the 18th century! Hell, our founders supported a federal banks and federal power to tax...So in away this is kind of what they wanted.

The idiotic state bs had been shown to not work with the need for the constitution.
 
Make 2nd amendment VERY clear.Do away with 14th amendment.Make 10th amendment stronger. Get rid of electoral college,change how senators are elected,make citizenship eligible based off of the 1790 naturalization act,supreme court term limits,congress term limits.
 
I think the idea of states is something that hurts advancement and we're better off with a
"weaker" tenth amendment. I'd change the constitutions instead to make the congress more powerful with the ability to remove the president with 2/3rds vote nearly everything. Snap elections kind of like Briton, Greece, etc.

Sure, the states could invest more locally into their infrastructure, educational and other needs. This is a great idea but it is a balance...

I'd also make it more clear that the federal government should fund infrastructure, science institutions, r&d investments and educational grants. The federalist/anti-federalist debate needs to be thrown in its grave and some cement thrown over it. We need to get up to speed of most modern first world countries in the 21st century..Something so broad that some idiotic group like the loserterians can "use" to advance their idiotic idea of NO Government is very destructive. It is kind of like the broadness of the 2nd Amendment...Both are bad.

The newer European and Asian first world countries are far more efficient and have the common sense to do what needs to be done.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top