You can write stuff like that into it; For example, the federal budget cannot exceed X percentage of GDP unless there is a declaration of war or disaster. Its not that hard.
The ambiguity was part of the strength; you're right about that. And it could be once more if the best interests of the country were still put above politics. Politics now rules the day in Washington. I think it always has but there was a time that when push came to shove, they did what was right. Those days are over. Lyndon Johnson famously commented that the CRA of 1964 would mean losing the south. He did it anyway. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see that sort of risk any longer.
Right now, the budget can be any sort of irresponsible number. Whether or not someone spends 2 billion or 25 billion on campaigns is totally up to them and their banker. Nothing prevents--in the Constitution--the Supreme Court from being expanded to twice it's size...or 5 times its size. I think we can all agree that 9 works well--why not write that in?
Theres no guarantee to privacy in the Constitution; if the government wanted to subpoena your Netflix que...it could. No problemo. What about your voting record? Nothing in the document prevents it.
I'm not sure what precisely you find deficient in the current US Constitution so that you want to propose prohibition style regulations upon the people of the nation. Some of your issues seem to be problems you find with how the nation is confronted with challenges (budgetary, military, threats to national security, threats to the economy,etc.)
I'm not sure what you mean by prohibition-style regulations.
Let me give you an example. The amendments to the Constitution...no President should serve more than 2 terms or 10 years. When Bush was leaving office, nobody suggested he stay but when it was Reagan...I think Reagan may have well gotten 30+ percent of the vote if he were on the ballot next to Bush and Dukakis. But nobody seriously suggested he run in opposition to the 22nd Amendment. Gore won the popular vote. Yet even he admitted that it is the Electoral College that determines the President. Nobody seriously suggested that he challenge the 12th amendment.
Of course you can't challenge constitutional amendments but neither man sought to create a movement that would either. Such movements can work where as the legal challenges cannot.
My point is that if it is in the document, it is elevated above politics. And since the practitioners of the law are now vehemently partisan and compromise is something a loser does; we need to elevate the rules above the silly pig-headed morons who now sit in the seats of power on both sides.
There will be an election soon where there a no debates. How's that sit with you? One guy/gal will be so far ahead that there is no reason for him/her to debate and open themselves up to gaffes. Since there are no rules, anything goes. Since both parties do it, everybody is guilty and nobody can hold anybody to account. I would prefer a law that is so ingrained in the country that whoever is nominated from their parties or seeks the office of President as an independent knows full well, they'd better saddle up for 6 debates. Or 4. Or 8. Something that will give us a clear head to head comparison of the KSA's of the men and women seeking office.
Congress can spend what it wants on anything it wants regardless of red ink. There are no rules to stop them. We have elections and you see how ineffective they are. Do I think that the 112th congress is staffed top to bottom with morons and criminals. No. But the problems they face are so stupendous due to abuses by both parties, the solutions are not politically appetizing. So nothing gets done. And nothing will get done.
Until there is a crash. Then the private sector acts. Houses are foreclosed; credit extended dries up overnight; and the stock market plunges. Your investments? Wiped out in seconds.
Then you'll see our "leaders" point more fingers at who is to blame. We bring in new practitioners and in no time flat the system is once again gamed to give a little more to the campaign contributors or to home districts or to special interests. And we're right back where we started.
Change the rules and you don't have to worry about this.
All of these challenges require actions of thoughtful wise, well-informed men and women, acting within a responsible adult democratic republic. Nothing added on a piece of paper we call the Constitution will solve problems and conquer the challenges we now face.
I disagree completely.
At work, we had a committee that used to organize the Christmas Party, Company Picnic, and some other events through out the year. Nobody was embezzling money but there were about 40-50 dollars that turned up missing one day. Opinions vary as to what happened to it because we can't agree what was in the kitty before the shortfall was experienced.
So we put in rules that have 2 people responsible for signing checks written by the committee. Guess what, in 10 years, every dime has been accounted for.
New rules solve problems all the time.
One rule I'd like to see is budgeting be tied to the GDP. The percentage of which is the question and there is room for debate on that.
I'd also like to see rules that lengthen the election day to election week for example. If you're polling place mysteriously shuts down early...you call the election board and can be directed somewhere else while they investigate. Simple.
As for your fears regarding our privacy rights, I find more destructive actions done by Congress and the former President in the last 10 years, all allegedly to "enhance" our security, but all really having an unintended consequence of stripping away our privacy. Yet again, this stripping away was done without changes to the Constitution, and they can be reversed by the actions of the very same legislature and executive branch, much MORE EASILY THAN through a cumbersome and complex Constitutional amendment process.
Look only as far back as the 1970's and the Equal Rights Amendment process, as to how THAT rather SIMPLE attempt to ensure our rights ...failed to be enacted.
Not sure what any of that has to do with what I'm proposing but okay...
Change the rules and you don't have to worry about some moron from a safe district in SE Iowa elevating to the Ways and Means chair and mis-using your monies to make SE Iowa look like Versailles.
