Outline of a new Constitution

[dcraelin]

just thought this needed a little more attention in all the hype and hoopla surrounding the presidential election.

 

[dcraelin]

another thing that should happen, as suggested in Kevin Phillip's book Arrogant Capital is to move the Capital, or substantial parts of it out of DC.

Germany was rejuvenated when it moved its capital from Bonn back to Berlin.

 

[dcraelin]

when will a presidential candidate outline substantial changes to our system (which it needs badly)?

 

[dcraelin]

Just found where some at the Constitutional convention argued for a more equitable representation in the Senate, and pointed to a resolution in an earlier Congress stating that the only reason it hadn't been done earlier was lack of materials to comparably measure the colonies.

Mr WILSON He entered elaborately into the defense of a proportional representation stating for his first position that as all authority was derived from the people equal numbers of people ought to have an equal no of representatives and different numbers of people different numbers of representatives This principle had been improperly violated in the Confederation owing to the urgent circumstances of the time […]
------------------------
[someone pointed to fact that Congress submitted to equal representation by the states in early congresses because they had "not being possessed of or at present able to procure materials for ascertaining the importance of each colony."]

 

[dcraelin]

Jefferson said we should have a new Constitution every 19 or 20 years....well past time

 

[Votto]

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

Why change the Constitution when they don't even follow the one they have today?

As for the Senate, the Senate was originally placed so that all states would have equal representation in Congress by appointing Senators. However, Progs amended the Constitution so that they are elected directly, which undermined the original intent. So at this point I would say, why have a Senate at all?

 

[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

Why change the Constitution when they don't even follow the one they have today?

As for the Senate, the Senate was originally placed so that all states would have equal representation in Congress by appointing Senators. However, Progs amended the Constitution so that they are elected directly, which undermined the original intent. So at this point I would say, why have a Senate at all?

I believe I partially address those questions above. They do follow it for the most part, a new one would provide fresh focus on its importance. As for States not having legislators choose Senators...isnt a State compose of it citizens?.... no one follows who their state legislators are...mostly political hacks ...rather choose the Senators directly.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh look, this bullshit again.

 

[Votto]

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

Why change the Constitution when they don't even follow the one they have today?

As for the Senate, the Senate was originally placed so that all states would have equal representation in Congress by appointing Senators. However, Progs amended the Constitution so that they are elected directly, which undermined the original intent. So at this point I would say, why have a Senate at all?

I believe I partially address those questions above. They do follow it for the most part, a new one would provide fresh focus on its importance. As for States not having legislators choose Senators...isnt a State compose of it citizens?.... no one follows who their state legislators are...mostly political hacks ...rather choose the Senators directly.

Originally, states ran their own affairs while the federal government played referee. Now the roles have switched minus the states playing the referee.

States are now powerless with their state governments becoming meaningless.

 

[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

Why change the Constitution when they don't even follow the one they have today?

As for the Senate, the Senate was originally placed so that all states would have equal representation in Congress by appointing Senators. However, Progs amended the Constitution so that they are elected directly, which undermined the original intent. So at this point I would say, why have a Senate at all?

I believe I partially address those questions above. They do follow it for the most part, a new one would provide fresh focus on its importance. As for States not having legislators choose Senators...isnt a State compose of it citizens?.... no one follows who their state legislators are...mostly political hacks ...rather choose the Senators directly.

Originally, states ran their own affairs while the federal government played referee. Now the roles have switched minus the states playing the referee.

States are now powerless with their state governments becoming meaningless.

Oh there is still plenty of corruption done by state legislators.

 

[Votto]

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

Why change the Constitution when they don't even follow the one they have today?

As for the Senate, the Senate was originally placed so that all states would have equal representation in Congress by appointing Senators. However, Progs amended the Constitution so that they are elected directly, which undermined the original intent. So at this point I would say, why have a Senate at all?

I believe I partially address those questions above. They do follow it for the most part, a new one would provide fresh focus on its importance. As for States not having legislators choose Senators...isnt a State compose of it citizens?.... no one follows who their state legislators are...mostly political hacks ...rather choose the Senators directly.

Originally, states ran their own affairs while the federal government played referee. Now the roles have switched minus the states playing the referee.

States are now powerless with their state governments becoming meaningless.

Oh there is still plenty of corruption done by state legislators.

It is the goal of the utopian to destroy all corruption. That is a pipe dream.

What can be done, however, is to decentralize power so that you have a myriad of state legislators to buy off in all 50 states verses only a hand full of federal officials to buy off, making corruption much more challenging.

 

[Votto]

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

Why change the Constitution when they don't even follow the one they have today?

As for the Senate, the Senate was originally placed so that all states would have equal representation in Congress by appointing Senators. However, Progs amended the Constitution so that they are elected directly, which undermined the original intent. So at this point I would say, why have a Senate at all?

I believe I partially address those questions above. They do follow it for the most part, a new one would provide fresh focus on its importance. As for States not having legislators choose Senators...isnt a State compose of it citizens?.... no one follows who their state legislators are...mostly political hacks ...rather choose the Senators directly.

Originally, states ran their own affairs while the federal government played referee. Now the roles have switched minus the states playing the referee.

States are now powerless with their state governments becoming meaningless.

Oh there is still plenty of corruption done by state legislators.

You should check into the Article V movement where states rise up to amend the Constitution.

I favor two amendments which are term limits for those in Congress and a balanced budget amendment of some type.

80% of American favor both.

Congress will never do either of these because it undermines its power base.

 

[hangover]

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

Why change the Constitution when they don't even follow the one they have today?

As for the Senate, the Senate was originally placed so that all states would have equal representation in Congress by appointing Senators. However, Progs amended the Constitution so that they are elected directly, which undermined the original intent. So at this point I would say, why have a Senate at all?

I believe I partially address those questions above. They do follow it for the most part, a new one would provide fresh focus on its importance. As for States not having legislators choose Senators...isnt a State compose of it citizens?.... no one follows who their state legislators are...mostly political hacks ...rather choose the Senators directly.

Originally, states ran their own affairs while the federal government played referee. Now the roles have switched minus the states playing the referee.

States are now powerless with their state governments becoming meaningless.

Oh there is still plenty of corruption done by state legislators.

You should check into the Article V movement where states rise up to amend the Constitution.

I favor two amendments which are term limits for those in Congress and a balanced budget amendment of some type.

80% of American favor both.

Congress will never do either of these because it undermines its power base.

Bubba Clinton balanced the budget with a republican congress.....that same republican congress destroyed the balanced budget six months after Shrub became POTUS, giving $3 trillion in tax cut welfare to millionaires. Then they lied about yellow cake as an excuse to invade Iraq, and wasted another $5 trillion on that war and installed the Shiite government, which created ISIS from the remnant of Saddam's Sunni government......then they destroyed the whole economy with deregulation of Wall Street Banks. And they blamed Obama for it all. No wonder they have Trump for a nominee.

 

[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

Why change the Constitution when they don't even follow the one they have today?

As for the Senate, the Senate was originally placed so that all states would have equal representation in Congress by appointing Senators. However, Progs amended the Constitution so that they are elected directly, which undermined the original intent. So at this point I would say, why have a Senate at all?

I believe I partially address those questions above. They do follow it for the most part, a new one would provide fresh focus on its importance. As for States not having legislators choose Senators...isnt a State compose of it citizens?.... no one follows who their state legislators are...mostly political hacks ...rather choose the Senators directly.

Originally, states ran their own affairs while the federal government played referee. Now the roles have switched minus the states playing the referee.

States are now powerless with their state governments becoming meaningless.

Oh there is still plenty of corruption done by state legislators.

It is the goal of the utopian to destroy all corruption. That is a pipe dream.

What can be done, however, is to decentralize power so that you have a myriad of state legislators to buy off in all 50 states verses only a hand full of federal officials to buy off, making corruption much more challenging.

thus my 2n point in original post, expanded boy of reps voting from home

 

[dcraelin]

With the Article V convention moving along from what I understand or being more seriously talked about, I revive this post