Friday Fun--Amend the Constitution

[albionmoonlight]

Well--maybe only fun to civics nerds like me :) Still, I hope that this exercise may cause people to really think about what the constitution is, which is never a bad thing.

In short, the constitution is the will of the people. We have all given up our individual freedom and soverignity and subjected ourselves to live under the constitution. The congress that passes laws which you must follow and the police that storm into your house to keep you from breaking those laws and the judges who decide whether you have broken those laws only have power over you because that power comes from the constitution--i.e. from the people--i.e. from you.

Note that because we are a sane people, the constitution tends to accord with our ideas of what is generally right. However, if we were to amend the constitution tomorrow to say that slavery was legal or that everyone had to be Hindu upon pain of death, or that everyone had to wear pink--then that would be the law of the land. And no court, congress, or president could really dispute that. It really all begins and ends with the constitution.

So let's say that you have been given the power to make one amendment to the constitution (and that the people won't turn around tomorrow and amend to get rid of your amendment). What would it be? Here is your chance to make any kind of a change that you want to the American government at the most fundamental level. Want to reform the electoral college? Done. Legalize it? Sure. Want to give more power to the police to prosecute the war on terror? Why not. Want to create a fourth branch to the government? go ahead. Don't like life tenure for federal judges? Stick it to them. Want to get your mom out of jail? Here is your chance.

A few notes and helpful hints:

1.) Within reason, don't try to do to much. You could have an amendment that says "Ignore everything else and do this . . ." and go on for 100 pages. Think of your amendment as a "one issue" thing. It can be long and involved, but just set some reasonable limit.

2.) The constitution tends to be a short document. It gives general guidelines, but does not spell out every instance of something. It's more of a place to put your theory of legalizing it than to insert your revised version of the federal drug laws.

3.) You can just say what your amendment would do (i.e. make the electoral college this way). We'll leave the details to the drafters.

4.) Let's feel free to agree to disagree on issues that we have debated 1000 times before. If person A says that he would amend the constitution to ban guns and person B responds with all of the reasons that we should have guns--let's just have A and B agree that they do not see eye to eye on the issue rather than have the same gun control debate that we have had 1000 times take over the thread.

5.) Finally, since this is supposed to get us thinking, feel free to say the one that you would really do (the issue important to you) and a creatitive one that you would like done (something that might challenge an assumption under which we have been living, but which isn't quite your #1 issue).

I am interested to see what people here come up with.

[albionmoonlight]

I'll pull a QuikSand and provide my own first response.

For me, it is a close call between an anti-abortion and anti-death penalty amendment. I find them equally horrific for different reasons. I think that if you put a gun to my head right now, I would go with an anti-abortion amendment. Something to the effect of the state and federal governments not being able to exempt unborn children from their murder laws. It would not criminalize abortion per se, (which is hard to do in the constitution) but pretty much force states that criminalize murder to criminalize abortion, too. This would have the added bonus of taking abortion off the table when debating "activist" judges.

I might change my secondary one, but if I had to do it now, I would reissue the Fourth Amendment with a note saying that we really mean it. I would make it much harder for the government to get all up in our business--whether one is a criminal or not--without serious consequence.

[gi]

Change the requirement from being born in the usa to be being able to run for President no matter where you were born.

[KWhit]

Change the requirement from being born in the usa to be being able to run for President no matter where you were born.
President Ahnold???

No thank you.

[Anthony]

no way, i don't want some foreigner with evil motives running for office with the ability to buy his way in like W Bush did with Florida in 2000. i'd much prefer my evil foreigners to do it the old fashioned way and just bribe our officials.

[Anthony]

and i also share that concern. only someone born in America culd have the passion and loyalty to do what's right for the country. in theory at least.

besides, no American-born citizen could run for office in another country, i don't see why we should let outher countries gain access to our highest offices.

[gi]

President Ahnold???

No thank you.
Not just for him, but for anyone. Since we are a nation of immigrants. If he wanted to run, then sure. I would hope the good people of the USA would say no to him. But just because you were not born here shouldn't restrict you to not achieving the highest office. If I remember correctly, the born in USA clause was put in there because there was a fear of wealthy europeans buying the top office in the new country.

[gi]

no way, i don't want some foreigner with evil motives running for office with the ability to buy his way in like W Bush did with Florida in 2000. i'd much prefer my evil foreigners to do it the old fashioned way and just bribe our officials.
It could not be a foreigner. They would have to be a USA Citizen first. And over 35 if memory serves.

[Anthony]

I would abolish Federal taxes and simply increase state/local taxes. i don't want my money going to help people in Florida with all their hurricanes or California with their forest fires/earthquakes. i don't live in those states and don't get to enjoy the perceived benefits of living in those states so why should my money go towards helping them? likewise why should someone in Boise, Idaho have to pay for the high cost of security in post-9/11 NYC? the federal government should thereby drastically reduce its spending budget. many programs would suffer but so be it. it's revenue could come from issuing bonds and a "rental fee" that every state would have to pay. the rental fee is basically a tax that comes from each individual state that would in essence pay for the right to have such things as Social Security, National Guard and to operate and exist in America.

i just threw the rental fee in there, but the moral of the story is to reduce the powers of the federal government by reducing its revenue - we then wouldn't have much money to be freedom fighters in other countries and the world would have to fend for itself. each state should be liable for its own crisis'. if we're all gonna take care of one another's problems then the idea of individual states is unnecessary.

[Anthony]

It could not be a foreigner. They would have to be a USA Citizen first. And over 35 if memory serves.


no, still makes it too easy to open the door for the wrong kind of person to get in our highest office.

[SunDancer]

I think Arnold would do a hell lot of a better job then most of the American citizens we have. Immigrants seem to have a greater appreciation of being here. Arnold has been here I think since he was a tot. To be a US citizen, you need to be here for 7 years as a permanent immigrant, take the exam (which I think is amazing that we have that, and proud we have such an exam), and if one does both and makes something of themselves, then they should be allow to run. They have the right to vote, free speech and all the other rights (even run for office expect Presidency), why should we restrict of them if they are good American citizens?

[gi]

no, still makes it too easy to open the door for the wrong kind of person to get in our highest office. :) They still have to be voted in.

[revrew]

"Parent's Bill of Rights"
I would create an amendment affirming that children are the sole care and responsibility of their parents and not wards of the state. Though I'm unsure of the proper wording to ensure this concept, I would envision at least three practical applications of this amendment:

1. Legalization and liberalization of home education laws nationwide.
2. Eradication of truancy laws.
3. Severly limiting the DHS (CPS, or whatever your state calls it), and limiting such agencies to action where only clear criminal conduct is involved.
There may be a fourth application, as the wording might open the door to greater parental legal responsibility for their children's actions.

Why this off-the-wall amendment? First off, as a strict constitutionalist myself, I don't believe the federal govt. has any jurisdiction in education whatsoever, so in a perfect world I might not support this amendment. But if a fundamental "right to parent" (for good or ill) was codified, it's application to education would be a secondary application rather, not necessarily the primary intent. This "right to parent" is a fundamental human right, IMO, and one that is constantly being infringed upon by the "takes a village to raise a child" crowd and bleeding-hearts who get stupid when they hear news stories of sensational abuse and/or neglect. My children ARE NOT my community's children, my state's children, or your good intent's children. They are mine. With so many people saying these days, "You can't push your morality on me" or "I can do what I want with my body," I'm stunned how easily we push our self-righteous judgments about how best to parent on other parents--and how willing we are to give the government the ability to police our parenting.

Sorry--big hot button for me. And yes, I do have a history with the Iowan brown shirts, a.k.a. DHS. The Iowa DHS has a very bad, and very well-deserved reputation for overstepping both reason and rights.

[John Galt]

I would amend the consitution to change representation in the House and Senate from a system of state representation to proportional party representation. That means if the Libertarians got 3% of the vote, they would get 3% of the seats. If the Socialists got 2% of the vote, they would get 2% of the seats. There would no longer be representation of states directly, but parties could form that reflected particular state or regional interests.

[Anthony]

:) They still have to be voted in.

in this day and age you jsut can't let the possibilty of non-American born candidates running this country exist. i would vote for a black women - the ultimate of minorities - before i would vote for a foreign-born candidate.

matter of fact i think i'd be so pissed if a foreign born person won that i'd probably move to Canada or something.

[Celeval]

Realistic possibility: Balanced Budget amendment
Slightly less realistic possibility: Elimination of income taxes in favor of flat sales/usage type tax (see VAT in UK, etc)
Won't happen in my lifetime: No laws can be made restricting anyone to anything based on Race, Gender, Color, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Operating System preference, etc. etc. etc.

[Dutch]

I would amend the consitution to change representation in the House and Senate from a system of state representation to proportional party representation. That means if the Libertarians got 3% of the vote, they would get 3% of the seats. If the Socialists got 2% of the vote, they would get 2% of the seats. There would no longer be representation of states directly, but parties could form that reflected particular state or regional interests.

The Divided Parties of America. Interesting concept for a country, but I don't like it. :)

[albionmoonlight]

First off, as a strict constitutionalist myself, I don't believe the federal govt. has any jurisdiction in education whatsoever, so in a perfect world I might not support this amendment.
This is what's cool about an amendment, though. You can vote for it and it changes only that aspect of the constitution. You can remain a strict constructionist in other areas.

It would be harder for you to reconcile your beliefs with federal legislation that does what you say, but an amendment would be just fine.

[digamma]

I think mine would address the districting of the House of Representatives. I'd divide the 435 representatives proportionally by population, without regard to state borders--so the Dakotas or Montana and Idaho may have a combined representative or three representatives for 2 states. Districting would be done on the national level by a non-partisan entity (though this end of things may be a pipe dream).

The goal would be two-fold--balance the citizen per representative ratio across districts and to try to eliminate the absurd gerrymandering that goes on in state legislatures every 10 years (though it may be just moving the absurd gerrymandering to the national level).

The Senate would remain the same.

[albionmoonlight]

I think mine would address the districting of the House of Representatives. I'd divide the 435 representatives proportionally by population, without regard to state borders--so the Dakotas or Montana and Idaho may have a combined representative or three representatives for 2 states. Districting would be done on the national level by a non-partisan entity (though this end of things may be a pipe dream).

The goal would be two-fold--balance the citizen per representative ratio across districts and to try to eliminate the absurd gerrymandering that goes on in state legislatures every 10 years (though it may be just moving the absurd gerrymandering to the national level).

The Senate would remain the same.
Your amendment could also restrict the number of lines used to draw districts. A good way to prevent gerrymandering is to limit the drawing tools.

[digamma]

Your amendment could also restrict the number of lines used to draw districts. A good way to prevent gerrymandering is to limit the drawing tools.
Yeah, number of lines or providing that districts conform as closely as possible to a regular shape might do the trick.

[Warhammer]

I would repeal the direct election of senators, and give the power back to the state legislatures.

One questions about a balanced budget amendment, how would this be enforced? Also, what would happen in a time of national emergency? If you make allowances for a national emergency, would that not be exploited?

[flere-imsaho]

Amendment XXVIII

When we said, in Amendment II "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", we didn't mean Assault Weapons, you dingbats. :rolleyes:

Recognize that Amendment II was designed to allow citizens to protect themselves against invading nations and oppressive governments. Since two centuries have passed and our great nation is unlikely to be invaded, that no longer applies.

However, the "oppressive government" thing could still be a concern, so as a nod to those of you who worry about this, we'll offer a regulation, and a caveat:

Regulation: You can still bear arms, but not if the weapon in question uses "automatic fire" (defined as holding down the trigger to discharge multiple rounds).

Caveat: If you're arrested for this regulation, but can prove that you were resisting an "oppressive government" in a court of law, then you will not be subject to double jeopardy on this charge.

We understand that this won't help the citizenry if the government decides to get really oppressive, but we figure by that point all bets will be off anyway. This is intended to provide an "out" for assault weapons used against government forces who are operating outside the purview of the Constitution.

And seriously folks, if you can't take down a deer with a couple of bolt-action shots, you probably shouldn't be hunting....

[mckerney]

Realistic possibility: Balanced Budget amendment

Rather than an amendment that demands for the budget to be balanced every fiscal year, I'd rather see something that demands it be balanced over a period of time. Not sure exactly how I'd work it, but there are times of recession where a tax break and increased spending are the best thing to do, so perhaps save money when running a surplus to spend when the economy is in need of a boost.

[Dutch]

And seriously folks, if you can't take down a deer with a couple of bolt-action shots, you probably shouldn't be hunting....

I do my hunting in the grocery store.

[gi]

in this day and age you jsut can't let the possibilty of non-American born candidates running this country exist. i would vote for a black women - the ultimate of minorities - before i would vote for a foreign-born candidate.

matter of fact i think i'd be so pissed if a foreign born person won that i'd probably move to Canada or something.
Taking an extreme view: A baby is born in any other country besides our own. Lives in the USA from the first year on and grows up in America. Would you find just cause in not letting this person run?

USA is a very young country and most of us can trace back a couple generations where our ancestors were born in another country. I do not see birth place being a meaniful restriction.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

All federal elections to be publicly financed with strict spending caps. This amendment will be considered a publicly justified abridgment to the 1st amendment in same way intellectual property rights, obscenity, slander, inciting panic or criminal acts, etc are abridged.

[ISiddiqui]

My children ARE NOT my community's children, my state's children, or your good intent's children. They are mine.

Children as property? Well, I'd have a 13th Amendment argument over that :p.

---

Well, I'd change a few things around:

Repeal the amendment for Direct Election of Senators. Go back to having the State House elect them.

Change the House to a Proportional Represenation system. (less democracy balanced with more democracy)

Put in an actual 'Right to Privacy' and abolish the PATRIOT Act or anything like it.

[mckerney]

All federal elections to be publicly financed with strict spending caps. This amendment will be considered a publicly justified abridgment to the 1st amendment in same way intellectual property rights, obscenity, slander, inciting panic or criminal acts, etc are abridged.

Just curious, how would it be decided who money would be given to?

[Glengoyne]

In an Ideal world, I'd say I'd want to repeal the seventeenth amendment that provides for the direct election of Senators. I'm not sure if I'd rather they be elected by the State Legislatures or appointed by the Governor of each state. I'm sure that system would probably still fall victim to the influence of special interests that my proposal would attempt to avoid. But in a perfect world, it would work.

Perhaps election reform would be the way to go. An amendment calling for public funding for all federal offices. Or maybe an amendment that plainly states, what should be obvious to everyone, that money isn't speech, therefore donations to specific politicians could be banned or curtailed. I'm of the opinion that our current system essentially amounts to legalized bribery.

My most grandiose proposal would be for the creation of a separate court system established for the sole purpose of handling death penalty cases. The Government would pay for two sets of attorneys, one to prosecute the cases, and one to defend those on death row. The court's purpose would be to evaluate any and all appeals brought forth, and expedite the course of justice. People say the death penalty isn't a deterant, well I am of the opinion that if we start executing people within a handful of years of their conviction then it might become somewhat of a deterant. I'd want it to be a fair system, that would even weigh possibly exculpatory evidence that is prohibited by the courts today.


I tried not to argue with individual posts, but I am weak willed.

And seriously folks, if you can't take down a deer with a couple of bolt-action shots, you probably shouldn't be hunting....
No one is using assault rifles for hunting, though some do use semi-automatic rifles. Oh and Automatic Weapons are already illegal.

[Surtt]

Note that because we are a sane people, the constitution tends to accord with our ideas of what is generally right. However, if we were to amend the constitution tomorrow to say that slavery was legal or that everyone had to be Hindu upon pain of death, or that everyone had to wear pink--then that would be the law of the land. And no court, congress, or president could really dispute that. It really all begins and ends with the constitution.



LOL

The constitution is just a peace of paper ( or parchment or what ever it is.)
The Courts, the supreme court in particular, decide what it means.
If the supreme court decides that our founding fathers meant pink as naked, we couldn't ware cloths.
20 years later, after a more conservative president appointed more conservative judges, they could decide "pink" actually meant black and we would all have to dress conservatively.

The courts are the living law of the land, not the constitution.

All that said.
I would like to see English made the official language.
I don't mind immigration, but lets all be able to communicate.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Just curious, how would it be decided who money would be given to?

There are various systems already in use in states that have public funding (Maine, Arizona, Massachussetts, Vermont) as well a somewhat borked system for providing public funds for presidential campaigns (although I don't believe that any of these systems also place spending caps (which is why they're borked)), and I believe a number of European countries use these systems as well. I've never compared the pros and cons of the various systems, but I'm sure there are plenty of workable options....

[Abe Sargent]

I would actually make the Right to Privacy a stated amendment. In that amendment, I would spell out what does, and does not, constitute privacy.

Privacy is one of the greatest issues facing our country, and I'd rather our bench had an amendment to use as a guidleine instead of trying to back it into the Constitution and having different judges with different politics making wildly different rulings on privacy.

Remember, issues like abortion, children's rights, internet snooping, spyware, and more are decided on privacy. Shouldn't we have a Constitutional Amendment on the issue?

-Anxiety

[Desnudo]

A constitutional amendment that forces women to wear little black dresses at all times.

[Celeval]

A constitutional amendment that forces women to wear little black dresses at all times.
Makes it kinda hard to actually follow /through/ on the sex life, wouldn't it?

[Desnudo]

They can keep it on.

[oliegirl]

Children as property? Well, I'd have a 13th Amendment argument over that

He didn't say or imply that children would become property...he simply was saying that in his house he should be allowed to deal with his children as he sees fit without worrying about what everyone else in the community thinks.

I agree with the simple explanation of this, but don't think that DFACS (Ga's name for it) should be dismantled completely. I think it's kind of like the welfare system...the idea is great, the way it's been handled, not so great.

[RendeR]

A few items:

1: And amendment to state distinctly and in no uncertain terms that there IS and always should be a distinct seperation of church and state. Religion is a personal venue, and as such cannot ever truly represent all the people all the time. Our government must not fall prey to religious sycophants and hysteria.

2: As someone else mentioned, a national Language. I have no problems with immagrants making their way to the united states and finding better lives, but if you want to live and work here, speak in a language that everyone can comprehend, and do it to a high enough level that it doesn't detract from your ability to maintain employment.

3. Ban all party line politics. henceforth there will be no recognized "parties" everyone shall run for office on their own merits, values, and policies. I've had more than enough total bullshit blown up my ass by partisan freaks.

there's plenty more, but frankly, these three are all the pip dreams I can handle right now.