Outline of a new Constitution

[jwoodie]

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.

So you would like to get rid of States altogether and institute mob rule?

 

[dcraelin]

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.

So you would like to get rid of States altogether and institute mob rule?

no ...tho getting rid of the states would not be "mob rule"......I would keep the states but give them less or more voting power in the Senate on a more rational basis.

Tho I would also entertain the idea of getting rid of the Senate altogether. Ben Franklin never wanted a Senate

 

[dcraelin]

votes like the one on the latest "greatest" trade agreement in the Senate demonstrate the contemptible, irrational set-up of the current Senate.....it needs to change or be eliminated. It is a joke on the nation.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

Nearly 100 years.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

Nearly 100 years.

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

Nearly 100 years.

Indeed. It's very similar to the "immigration reform" deal. Apparently, the immigration system is "broken" (at least according to the left). It's not "broken". It's just not being enforced any longer. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the law - just the cowards who refuse to do their jobs.

Just as in the Constitution - when it doesn't do what the left wants - it's "broken". No it isn't.

 

[dcraelin]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

Nearly 100 years.

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

Nearly 100 years.

Indeed. It's very similar to the "immigration reform" deal. Apparently, the immigration system is "broken" (at least according to the left). It's not "broken". It's just not being enforced any longer. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the law - just the cowards who refuse to do their jobs.

Just as in the Constitution - when it doesn't do what the left wants - it's "broken". No it isn't.

The Constitution gives us the system that has pushed us into unsustainable debt levels.....
It isnt just the "left" that wants to revise it....Mark Levin being the most prominent conservative that sees a need for change.
quite a lot of Tea party members see a need to change the amendment that changed the way we choose Senators....I think a compromise position would be to outlaw outside money in Senate elections. .

Ben Franklin didnt want a Senate.....and our Senate is based on an irrational system where Rhode Island has the same influence as California.....obscene and idiotic...........That needs to be changed.....or the Senate needs to be eliminated entirely as Franklin wanted.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

Nearly 100 years.

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

Nearly 100 years.

Indeed. It's very similar to the "immigration reform" deal. Apparently, the immigration system is "broken" (at least according to the left). It's not "broken". It's just not being enforced any longer. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the law - just the cowards who refuse to do their jobs.

Just as in the Constitution - when it doesn't do what the left wants - it's "broken". No it isn't.

The Constitution gives us the system that has pushed us into unsustainable debt levels.....
It isnt just the "left" that wants to revise it....Mark Levin being the most prominent conservative that sees a need for change.
quite a lot of Tea party members see a need to change the amendment that changed the way we choose Senators....I think a compromise position would be to outlaw outside money in Senate elections. .

Ben Franklin didnt want a Senate.....and our Senate is based on an irrational system where Rhode Island has the same influence as California.....obscene and idiotic...........That needs to be changed.....or the Senate needs to be eliminated entirely as Franklin wanted.

Sorry bud, but you are full of it. The "Constitution" did no such thing. Get your facts straight.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

no
no
no
no
no
no
huh?

 

[dcraelin]

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

Nearly 100 years.

The one we have is fine, leave it alone

Indeed. Abide by the one we have and we'll be fine. I guess the operative word is "abide". The left has been looking to usurp our Constitution for the last 50 years.

Nearly 100 years.

Indeed. It's very similar to the "immigration reform" deal. Apparently, the immigration system is "broken" (at least according to the left). It's not "broken". It's just not being enforced any longer. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the law - just the cowards who refuse to do their jobs.

Just as in the Constitution - when it doesn't do what the left wants - it's "broken". No it isn't.

The Constitution gives us the system that has pushed us into unsustainable debt levels.....
It isnt just the "left" that wants to revise it....Mark Levin being the most prominent conservative that sees a need for change.
quite a lot of Tea party members see a need to change the amendment that changed the way we choose Senators....I think a compromise position would be to outlaw outside money in Senate elections. .

Ben Franklin didnt want a Senate.....and our Senate is based on an irrational system where Rhode Island has the same influence as California.....obscene and idiotic...........That needs to be changed.....or the Senate needs to be eliminated entirely as Franklin wanted.

Sorry bud, but you are full of it. The "Constitution" did no such thing. Get your facts straight.

of course it did, in part, because it set up our government structure...which makes it so hard to elect quality people.......
and which makes it so hard to pass a balanced budget amendment for an example.

 

[dcraelin]

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

no
no
no
no
no
no
huh?

why?
why?
why?
why?
why?
why?

The congress is soon to debate a trade "pact" that is really a treaty under the provisions of the Constitution. But to get an easier vote they call it a "pact". Let me also say tho that any treaty should also need approval by the house.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

no
no
no
no
no
no
huh?

why?
why?
why?
why?
why?
why?

The congress is soon to debate a trade "pact" that is really a treaty under the provisions of the Constitution. But to get an easier vote they call it a "pact". Let me also say tho that any treaty should also need approval by the house.

How does that make it "easier" that it needs the approval of two houses instead of just one? Seems like that actually makes it harder.

 

[dcraelin]

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

no
no
no
no
no
no
huh?

why?
why?
why?
why?
why?
why?

The congress is soon to debate a trade "pact" that is really a treaty under the provisions of the Constitution. But to get an easier vote they call it a "pact". Let me also say tho that any treaty should also need approval by the house.

How does that make it "easier" that it needs the approval of two houses instead of just one? Seems like that actually makes it harder.

well as I understand it treaties now require 2/3rds vote of the Senate..... also I want the body closest to the people to be at least a part of the decision making process on these as they are largely a sell-out of the American worker.

see my OP criticism of the Senate also....it is an irrational body that gives far to much wait to eastern seaboard Senators....those Senators closest to the big banking concerns I would guess.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

That would mean that all representatives would have an equal vote as opposed to the current system where some are more equal than others because of the low population density in a state.

 

[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.

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

That would mean that all representatives would have an equal vote as opposed to the current system where some are more equal than others because of the low population density in a state.

Not sure what you mean with your first sentence, stat? I envisioned house members still within state borders but what you outline would also work....there is a provision in Constitution about every state having at least one...which might cause problems...not sure....I also figured around 10 times as many representatives....so over 4000 which would surely even things out regarding state differentials in population per rep.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

That would mean that all representatives would have an equal vote as opposed to the current system where some are more equal than others because of the low population density in a state.

Not sure what you mean with your first sentence, stat? I envisioned house members still within state borders but what you outline would also work....there is a provision in Constitution about every state having at least one...which might cause problems...not sure....I also figured around 10 times as many representatives....so over 4000 which would surely even things out regarding state differentials in population per rep.

Statistikhengst can you provide a link to your thread on having 1000 House Reps?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

That would mean that all representatives would have an equal vote as opposed to the current system where some are more equal than others because of the low population density in a state.

Not sure what you mean with your first sentence, stat? I envisioned house members still within state borders but what you outline would also work....there is a provision in Constitution about every state having at least one...which might cause problems...not sure....I also figured around 10 times as many representatives....so over 4000 which would surely even things out regarding state differentials in population per rep.

Statistikhengst can you provide a link to your thread on having 1000 House Reps?

This thread, from December, 2013:

Electioneering

The info about the legislative is in posting no. 2:



Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[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.

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

That would mean that all representatives would have an equal vote as opposed to the current system where some are more equal than others because of the low population density in a state.

Not sure what you mean with your first sentence, stat? I envisioned house members still within state borders but what you outline would also work....there is a provision in Constitution about every state having at least one...which might cause problems...not sure....I also figured around 10 times as many representatives....so over 4000 which would surely even things out regarding state differentials in population per rep.

Statistikhengst can you provide a link to your thread on having 1000 House Reps?

This thread, from December, 2013:

Electioneering

The info about the legislative is in posting no. 2:



Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

only part way thru the post but like some thing s dislike others.....Senators based on population is akin to house....different term lengths....yes...but I think close enough that maybe just eliminate Senate if your going down that route....like the idea of "national" senators......or senators from larger than state regions perhaps.

my idea of senators based on renewable economic base approaches what we have now except for large discrepancies like California and the small new england states.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

That would mean that all representatives would have an equal vote as opposed to the current system where some are more equal than others because of the low population density in a state.

Not sure what you mean with your first sentence, stat? I envisioned house members still within state borders but what you outline would also work....there is a provision in Constitution about every state having at least one...which might cause problems...not sure....I also figured around 10 times as many representatives....so over 4000 which would surely even things out regarding state differentials in population per rep.

Statistikhengst can you provide a link to your thread on having 1000 House Reps?

This thread, from December, 2013:

Electioneering

The info about the legislative is in posting no. 2:



Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

only part way thru the post but like some thing s dislike others.....Senators based on population is akin to house....different term lengths....yes...but I think close enough that maybe just eliminate Senate if your going down that route....like the idea of "national" senators......or senators from larger than state regions perhaps.

my idea of senators based on renewable economic base approaches what we have now except for large discrepancies like California and the small new england states.

It is kind of an epic thread and only makes sense when you read ALL of it. All five postings that comprise the OP.

 

[dcraelin]

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

That would mean that all representatives would have an equal vote as opposed to the current system where some are more equal than others because of the low population density in a state.

Not sure what you mean with your first sentence, stat? I envisioned house members still within state borders but what you outline would also work....there is a provision in Constitution about every state having at least one...which might cause problems...not sure....I also figured around 10 times as many representatives....so over 4000 which would surely even things out regarding state differentials in population per rep.

Statistikhengst can you provide a link to your thread on having 1000 House Reps?

This thread, from December, 2013:

Electioneering

The info about the legislative is in posting no. 2:



Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

only part way thru the post but like some thing s dislike others.....Senators based on population is akin to house....different term lengths....yes...but I think close enough that maybe just eliminate Senate if your going down that route....like the idea of "national" senators......or senators from larger than state regions perhaps.

my idea of senators based on renewable economic base approaches what we have now except for large discrepancies like California and the small new england states.

It is kind of an epic thread and only makes sense when you read ALL of it. All five postings that comprise the OP.

Ok and I'm in the process of reading it.....Have to say I do not like idea of longer presidential terms...tho I know some argue would reduce fundraising, special interest influence

 

[dcraelin]

Stat came up with a House with a 1000 representatives. The population would be divided by a thousand and then districts would be drawn nationally based on the census to accommodate 1/1000 of the population irrespective of state borders.

That would mean that all representatives would have an equal vote as opposed to the current system where some are more equal than others because of the low population density in a state.

Not sure what you mean with your first sentence, stat? I envisioned house members still within state borders but what you outline would also work....there is a provision in Constitution about every state having at least one...which might cause problems...not sure....I also figured around 10 times as many representatives....so over 4000 which would surely even things out regarding state differentials in population per rep.

Statistikhengst can you provide a link to your thread on having 1000 House Reps?

This thread, from December, 2013:

Electioneering

The info about the legislative is in posting no. 2:



Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

only part way thru the post but like some thing s dislike others.....Senators based on population is akin to house....different term lengths....yes...but I think close enough that maybe just eliminate Senate if your going down that route....like the idea of "national" senators......or senators from larger than state regions perhaps.

my idea of senators based on renewable economic base approaches what we have now except for large discrepancies like California and the small new england states.

It is kind of an epic thread and only makes sense when you read ALL of it. All five postings that comprise the OP.

Like almost all of SC proposals, instead of having the voters decide however....I would take the credentialed candidates and have them chosen by lot. ...similar to how courts were set up in the Articles of Confederation.