A New Constitution

[Drake_Roberts]

God no. Don't even think of a "new constitution". Why do the people who think we should secede or revolt or create a new constitution ridicule the "tea Party" people who are trying to peacefully get the right people elected and freaking live up to the Constitution we have? What we need to do is to get involved.

Never gonna happen. Too much bureaucracy. The country needs a good reset, if you will. Read my sig, Washington was right. Political parties are the death of us. And maybe people ridicule the Tea Party because they want a government with 1 party in control with complete power forever. America needs 1 party, but not the right nor the left.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Any thoughts...

Obviously you’re not serious.

Otherwise, the notion of a ‘new’ Constitution is nonsense.

In fact, the Constitution ratified in 1788 wasn’t ‘new,’ either – it was the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American juridical tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the assizes of Henry II.

In addition to being the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American juridical tradition, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and derives its authority and legitimacy from both that Anglo-American juridical tradition and over 200 years of jurisprudence where the courts have turned into reality the original intent and theory of governance envisioned by the Framers.

It is, therefore, irreplaceable – and thankfully so.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Any thoughts...

Obviously you’re not serious.

Otherwise, the notion of a ‘new’ Constitution is nonsense.

In fact, the Constitution ratified in 1788 wasn’t ‘new,’ either – it was the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American juridical tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the assizes of Henry II.

In addition to being the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American juridical tradition, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and derives its authority and legitimacy from both that Anglo-American juridical tradition and over 200 years of jurisprudence where the courts have turned into reality the original intent and theory of governance envisioned by the Framers.

It is, therefore, irreplaceable – and thankfully so.

Nothing is "irreplaceable". Governments come and go, people change centuries old practices to have a better life. Time America started a new tradition. The founding fathers had no problem rebelling and forming a new country.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually, we just need the brainwashed debt cult, compromise is a dirty word TP TO BE PUT OUT TO PASTURE BY THE gop- NOW HAPPENING. Rush, Beck, Savage, Levin, and all the other bomb throwing charlatans should be shot, and Fox should should get a gd grip LOL. Bring back the fairness doctrine and a little brave debate and they'd be gone anyway... And all the hater dupes on here with them.

Yes. Let us ignore the far left partisan editorial slant of the majority of MSM outlets.
All persons not expressing pro leftist views should be executed.
Repeal the 6th Amendment for all non liberals.

**** you asshole.
YOU should be shot. Then have your teeth knocked out.
Cyber *****...

OR... both of you should be shot.

Your home should be plowed under for use as a landfill.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If I were to rewrite the constitution, it would look something like this:
1. Consul- Serves for 5 year terms and can run unlimited times. Presides over Supreme Court, High Council, and Senate.

We get it. You want to wank off to Obama being your unquestioned lord and master.

 

[candycorn]

As so many people pointed out on an earlier thread of mine, compromise in Washington is just a pipe dream. In other words, America is sunk. If I were to rewrite the constitution, it would look something like this:

Keep in mind every generation has been stating that the country is "sunk"; probably since Reconstruction or before.

1. Consul- Serves for 5 year terms and can run unlimited times. Presides over Supreme Court, High Council, and Senate.

The equivalent to President would preside over the Supreme Court (and likely have input on decisions). Not sure how that would be a positive since the Supreme Court (as we know it) only hears matters of constitutionality where the Executive is often involved.

2. Court- 9 judges. Works close to how the current one does, except the judges are appointed by the individual Houses that make up the Senate, ie each house has three judges.

Not the worst idea I've heard. What are your terms of service? Still lifetime?

3. High Council- Sort of like the Cabinet. Made of however many Counsellors needed. Elected by the people. MUST be one of the foremost minds in that respective field. Is NOT allowed to interfere with work of any other Counsellor, except with special permission from the Consul. High Council members introduce laws, bills, regulations, etc related to their particular area.

Again, not the worst idea ever except who decides whom is the "foremost mind" in their field?

I do like the idea of the secretary of education introducing education bills.

4. Senate- Composed of 3 Houses: Upper, Middle, and Lower.
Upper- 50 members. 1 from each state. Elected ONLY by the wealthy (those making over 250k a year) in that respective state.
Middle- 200 members. 4 from each state. Elected ONLY by the middle class (those making 249k-21k) in that respective state.
Lower- 50 members. 1 from each state. Elected ONLY by the poor (those making less than 21k a year) in that respective state.

Terrible idea. So a wife making $60K a year would vote for one house and her unemployed husband or college student kids would vote for another? And she would be able to vote for 4 people and they could vote for 1?

Senate must pass a budget in conjunction with Consul and Counsellor of Economics by the first of each year, for that year, else they forfeit ALL paychecks that shall NOT be paid until a budget that turns a surplus for the nation is approved by an 80% majority.

Bad idea.

Laws are passed with a 60% majority from the senate, featuring at least 30% support from each of the Houses.

I like that there is a majority but why would 50% not be enough?

People of all nations, creeds, and faiths may vote in the elections, so long as they are a citizen of the nation. Senatorial elections are for three years in all three Houses. High Counsellors may be removed at any time as long as approved by a basic majority in the Senate and moved by the Consul.

Whats the point of elections if the recall has to be contingent on the Consul

I've even created a new name for the country with this constitution: the Free and Independent States of America (FISA, for short).

Any thoughts or changes anybody would make to this constitution?

Some good ideas. I think we can do better though. Change the Constitution in the following ways.

-Leave the President the way it is.
-Eliminate the Senate.
-Give the House the Senatorial duties of advise and consent. Expand the House to give better representation.
-Change the election of House Members in the following way:
*Districts no longer need to be contiguous. If the census dictates that a state has 10 districts, divide all of the ZIP codes in the State by 10 (if they have 17 districts, divide by 17, etc...). Have 3 categories of ZIP codes; one for populations over 20,000, one for populations 19,999-1,000, and one for ZIPs that have less than 1,000. Call them A, B, and C. The rep from the 1st district gets X number from A, B, and C, the rep from the 2nd district gets X number from A, B, and C, etc... Eventually, all reps would have roughly the same number of people in their districts. Demographics often break down on economic lines with higher densities being less affluent and less dense being somewhat more affluent. In other words, you won't have districts that gerrymander along socio-economic lines. And maybe you'll get blacks voting for white representatives and vice versa. BEDLAM!!!!

-Supreme Court. Keep it at 9 but keep terms to 18 years. This would guarantee each President appoints 3 justices.

 

[dblack]

Here's a simple, but fundamental "tweak": All new legislation requires a two-thirds majority to pass. But all existing legislation can be repealed with a simple majority.

 

[Politico]

There is not going to be a new Constitution.

 

[LoneLaugher]

We don't need a new Constitution, we need new leaders that will follow the one we have.

They do.

When they don't their actions are checked.

Stop the bullshit whining you sore losers.

 

[Mojo2]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JFFBYvDFQ]The Liberty Amendments: Mark Levin on Hannity - YouTube[/ame]

Watch this and you'll get excited.

 

[Mojo2]

There is not going to be a new Constitution.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JFFBYvDFQ]The Liberty Amendments: Mark Levin on Hannity - YouTube[/ame]

Watch this and you'll get excited.

 

[occupied]

The constitution of any country is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper without a commitment to proper governance by it's leaders and the courage of it's people to never allow themselves to be scared into trading away freedom for security.

 

[hazlnut]

We need an amendment making it clear that money is not Free Speech.

We need federal law that voids all state voter ID laws.

We need to close all minimum security federal "country club" prisons -- white collar criminals should do hard time.

We need to begin public shaming of homophobes, bigots, racists, and faux "Christians". Stop tolerating intolerance and evil vile shit as 'free speech' -- (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church)

We need to criminalize all bad or corrupt behavior by Public Employees -- especially legislators.


The Constitution we have is perfectly fine.

 

[hazlnut]

There is not going to be a new Constitution.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JFFBYvDFQ]The Liberty Amendments: Mark Levin on Hannity - YouTube[/ame]

Watch this and you'll get excited.

Mark Levin is an ignorant piece of crap.

 

[dblack]

We need an amendment making it clear that money is not Free Speech.

Money is just money. But deciding how to spend our money is as fundamental as free speech and should be protected likewise.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Which is, of course, why he detests it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As so many people pointed out on an earlier thread of mine, compromise in Washington is just a pipe dream. In other words, America is sunk. If I were to rewrite the constitution, it would look something like this:
1. Consul- Serves for 5 year terms and can run unlimited times. Presides over Supreme Court, High Council, and Senate.
2. Court- 9 judges. Works close to how the current one does, except the judges are appointed by the individual Houses that make up the Senate, ie each house has three judges.
3. High Council- Sort of like the Cabinet. Made of however many Counsellors needed. Elected by the people. MUST be one of the foremost minds in that respective field. Is NOT allowed to interfere with work of any other Counsellor, except with special permission from the Consul. High Council members introduce laws, bills, regulations, etc related to their particular area.
4. Senate- Composed of 3 Houses: Upper, Middle, and Lower.
Upper- 50 members. 1 from each state. Elected ONLY by the wealthy (those making over 250k a year) in that respective state.
Middle- 200 members. 4 from each state. Elected ONLY by the middle class (those making 249k-21k) in that respective state.
Lower- 50 members. 1 from each state. Elected ONLY by the poor (those making less than 21k a year) in that respective state.
Senate must pass a budget in conjunction with Consul and Counsellor of Economics by the first of each year, for that year, else they forfeit ALL paychecks that shall NOT be paid until a budget that turns a surplus for the nation is approved by an 80% majority. Laws are passed with a 60% majority from the senate, featuring at least 30% support from each of the Houses. People of all nations, creeds, and faiths may vote in the elections, so long as they are a citizen of the nation. Senatorial elections are for three years in all three Houses. High Counsellors may be removed at any time as long as approved by a basic majority in the Senate and moved by the Consul.

I've even created a new name for the country with this constitution: the Free and Independent States of America (FISA, for short).

Any thoughts or changes anybody would make to this constitution?

What a hoot.

We're already not obeying the Constitution we have.

And your solution is to make another?

Where do you get the idea that will change anything?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

We don't need a new Constitution, we need new leaders that will follow the one we have.

Fact. Nothing wrong with the old one.

What we really need is a real consensus on the kind of government we want to have. No constitution can protect us if we don't have that.

It's called an election. The government we currently have IS the government we want. Americans want their government fighting each other, blocking each other, and divided along ideological lines.

Americans care more about partisan party politics than they do their own country. Hence, why we have the government we do.

 

[dblack]

Fact. Nothing wrong with the old one.

What we really need is a real consensus on the kind of government we want to have. No constitution can protect us if we don't have that.

It's called an election. The government we currently have IS the government we want. Americans want their government fighting each other, blocking each other, and divided along ideological lines.

Americans care more about partisan party politics than they do their own country. Hence, why we have the government we do.

Well, by "real consensus" I mean something much broader than a small majority. On the fundamentals (esp. purpose and scope of government), we need solid agreement.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

As so many people pointed out on an earlier thread of mine, compromise in Washington is just a pipe dream. In other words, America is sunk. If I were to rewrite the constitution, it would look something like this:

Keep in mind every generation has been stating that the country is "sunk"; probably since Reconstruction or before.

1. Consul- Serves for 5 year terms and can run unlimited times. Presides over Supreme Court, High Council, and Senate.

The equivalent to President would preside over the Supreme Court (and likely have input on decisions). Not sure how that would be a positive since the Supreme Court (as we know it) only hears matters of constitutionality where the Executive is often involved.


Not the worst idea I've heard. What are your terms of service? Still lifetime?


Again, not the worst idea ever except who decides whom is the "foremost mind" in their field?

I do like the idea of the secretary of education introducing education bills.


Terrible idea. So a wife making $60K a year would vote for one house and her unemployed husband or college student kids would vote for another? And she would be able to vote for 4 people and they could vote for 1?


Bad idea.


I like that there is a majority but why would 50% not be enough?

People of all nations, creeds, and faiths may vote in the elections, so long as they are a citizen of the nation. Senatorial elections are for three years in all three Houses. High Counsellors may be removed at any time as long as approved by a basic majority in the Senate and moved by the Consul.

Whats the point of elections if the recall has to be contingent on the Consul

I've even created a new name for the country with this constitution: the Free and Independent States of America (FISA, for short).

Any thoughts or changes anybody would make to this constitution?

Some good ideas. I think we can do better though. Change the Constitution in the following ways.

-Leave the President the way it is.
-Eliminate the Senate.
-Give the House the Senatorial duties of advise and consent. Expand the House to give better representation.
-Change the election of House Members in the following way:
*Districts no longer need to be contiguous. If the census dictates that a state has 10 districts, divide all of the ZIP codes in the State by 10 (if they have 17 districts, divide by 17, etc...). Have 3 categories of ZIP codes; one for populations over 20,000, one for populations 19,999-1,000, and one for ZIPs that have less than 1,000. Call them A, B, and C. The rep from the 1st district gets X number from A, B, and C, the rep from the 2nd district gets X number from A, B, and C, etc... Eventually, all reps would have roughly the same number of people in their districts. Demographics often break down on economic lines with higher densities being less affluent and less dense being somewhat more affluent. In other words, you won't have districts that gerrymander along socio-economic lines. And maybe you'll get blacks voting for white representatives and vice versa. BEDLAM!!!!

-Supreme Court. Keep it at 9 but keep terms to 18 years. This would guarantee each President appoints 3 justices.

Okay.
1. The Senate is just what all 3 Houses are called combined, not a separate entity.
2. I like the 18 year Supreme Court limits. Keeps them from getting senile.
3. The "foremost mind" means that they must be a respected leader in that field that has made important contributions to the field. It should be a general consensus of the academics from that field.
4. I did not explain the whole House economic thing very efficiently, did I? The household as a whole would be defined by their overall income. If I have to wiggle the numbers a bit, oh well. Also, college students can decide which to vote on if they wish, ie, if a 19 year old student lives with his middle class parents, he can decide to vote on either the middle-class ticket as a member of his parents' household, or he can vote on the poverty ticket. The 4 representatives for the middle house are divided up between each state. As in, Indiana would have four segments, each section electing 1 Middle House Representatives.
5. The 60% majority is to prevent one House (the middle) from having too much power. It must have the support of at least 1 other House to proceed.
6. I like the purple idea.
7. I might expand the Houses, but keep the proportions the same.
Good input.