Would You Change Anything? (Constitution, BoR)

O

oldbillthundercheif

Moderator
If James Madison or the founding father of your choice were to burst through a rift in time into your living room and ask for advice in drafting the Constitution (and a to a lesser extent, the Bill of Rights), would you change anything?

My neighbor's son was asked to write a paper on this for his American Government class. He is having a tough time thinking of anything as the document has served our nation so well. I'm having a tough time with it as well...

I guess it would be good to make sure that the Bill of Rights would be applied to all citizens and all states, as this has been a big problem pretty much from the beginning. The asssignment specifies that the BoR is a lesser consideration, though, and the majority of the paper should be on the Constitution.

If y'all have anything rattling around your heads that would improve the Constitution, spit it out here. It will help out a good kid with a weird paper to write.
 
My neighbor's son was asked to write a paper on this for his American Government class. He is having a tough time thinking of anything as the document has served our nation so well.
Click to expand...
More restrictive amendment requirements (simple majority in 3/4 of the state legislatures doesn't strike me as sufficiently separated from popular opinion).

A requirement that Congress pass and present some sort of constitutional amendment to the state legislatures at least once every year. Most of them would get shot down; people these days seem to be scared of the idea of new constitutional amendments, and I think that's bad. I think that process would also help generate serious political discussion on concrete issues, which is sorely needed in these days of MTV and content-free TV political ads.

Particular amendments I'd like to see--
  1. revamping the entire constitution to be less semantically ambiguous, and an explicit guiding statement for how to resolve semantic questions arising from the constitution
  2. something clarifying the interstate commerce clause
  3. something clarifying (or removing) the general welfare clause
  4. something dealing with nuclear weapons [NOT applicable if the question is limited to 1789-era adjustments]
  5. something dealing with rights to the EM spectrum [NOT applicable]
  6. something dealing with rights to airspace and underground resources
  7. something dealing with drugs (I think constitutionally regulating access to some antibiotics would be good, since they're low-demand, non-addictive, and only a few paranoids stockpile them, there wouldn't be much of a black market)
  8. something explicitly granting the fed.gov power to prevent states from passing laws banning mere possession of particular items
  9. something mandating range voting for all representative elections held in this country.
  10. something dealing with the ability of the government to maintain or buy access to databases of any kind on citizens. IMHO this power should be strictly limited.
  11. something banning bills beyond a certain length, and requiring that one bill may only add new laws to one section of the U.S. code

I think the entire parliamentary system should be changed. I think there should be at least three legislative bodies that should have to agree on legislation, rather than just two. I think the senate should be split into two -- around some early-middle-ish age, like 40. One senate-like body would have younger reps, with a min age of 25 like the House, while the other would have older reps. The middle-aged and elderly have too much legislative power in the federal government. There are of course a lot of foolish younger people, but I don't think that's any worse than the cronyism and ideological fanaticism and love of the status quo exhibited by the middle-aged and elderly.

Also, for important issues, which should be defined in the constitution, there should be a stricter requirement than simple majority. The government needs to pass less legislation and concentrate on fixing and simplifying past legislation.
 
1. Providing for popular control over the Federal Judiciary by providing for
recall of Federal judges and Supreme Court justices.
2. Allowing Congress to overturn Supreme Court decisions-there is already
language in the Constitution allowing Congress to control the judiciary's jurisdiction.
3. Requiring a supermajority to either levy new taxes or increase old ones.
California and some other states have a 2/3 vote requirement, maybe 60%
for Congress. California also has a requirement of a 2/3 vote to pass the
budget, that is something to think about.
4. Barring impeached officials from ever holding any other appointed or
elected office-no more Alcee Hastings.
5. Change the language barring cruel and unusual punishments to reflect experience and medical
knowledge.
 
I think overall the recall of Federal court judges or Supreme Court judges is a bad idea. They can be impeached.

Congress already has the power to override the Supreme Court. All they have to do is write the law in a manner that doesn't violate the Constitution or individual rights.

There is already a mechanism to amend the constitution in place.

Medical doctors should stick to practicing medicine not deciding about torture. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

The Constitution would work fine if folks didn't want to piecemeal it to death. It needs to be done as a whole and every amendment followed. People seem to want expediency instead of rights and justice these days.

As far as talking to the founding fathers who wrote and signed the constitution a little bit more explicit language would have been better. I fear even that would not deter the foolish who ignore the Constitution and the BoR these days. They want a Burger King Government not a government of law.
 
The asssignment specifies that the BoR is a lesser consideration, though, and the majority of the paper should be on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Thats kind of putting the cart before the horses in my opinion. The first document that this nation did was the Decleration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty"

They had to put the BoR in to pass the Constitution. Not add the Constitution to the BoR. That teacher may have things a tad backwards in my opinion. The government derives its existence from the consent of the people. I am thinking that if that teacher could talk to the folks whose rights and homes had been violated by the British troops he would find out how important the BoR was to them.
 
I like tyme's idea of range voting. Would have been nice to have something making both slavery and any form of conscription illegal. The most important thing to me, however, is that I'd suggest having a strictly defined seperation of church and state in the Constitution. The establishment clause is simply too weak.


Of course since our politicians don't care about the first amendment (FCC), the second amendment (BATFE), the fourth and fifth amendments (NSA, DEA, et al) then why would they care about any other rules we want them to follow? :rolleyes:
 
Of course

Make the 2A so explicit that even a child or brady bunch member can understand it. "The right of the citizens to own, keep, carry, and use firearms of any kind available shall not be infringed in any way, shape, form, or manner."

Yes, a more clear separation of church and state, too. And outlawing slavery.
 
You might look at the CSA Constitution, and see what improvements it made ... offhand I think the president had one six-year term (no chance of being reelected kept him from catering to a party) ... I think there was a line item veto ...
 
Why dont the politicians care about the Constitution and BoR? Because as a whole most citizens dont care about them. WE the people have abdicated our power and left it to the politicos in DC. The politicians could easily bring the ABC agencies back into control with the power of the pocketbook.
 
You might look at the CSA Constitution, and see what improvements it made
Click to expand...
In general, I agree with this (apart from the slavery thing, of course). After all, that is part of the reason why the CSA came about in the first place -- in their minds the US constitution was dysfunctional enough that it couldn't be fixed given the prevailing political climate (a situation that still stands), the differences between the CSA Constitution and the US constitution illustrate what they considered to be those points that desperately needed repair.

In general, it clearly limited the power of the "national" government, pushing the bulk of the governing to the States (where it should have been all along). It addressed the ambiguity of the "commerce clause", clearly spelling out just what the scope of what was allowed to the "national" government as opposed to State control. There were provisions that limited the taxing of region "A" for the benefit of region "B" (a direct shot at Lincoln's taxing of southern agricultural exports for the benefit of northern industrial infrastructure, a MAJOR cause of the war) which would go a LONG way towards minimizing pork barrel spending. And so on, and so forth...
 
Congress already has the power to override the Supreme Court. All they have to do is write the law in a manner that doesn't violate the Constitution or individual rights.
Click to expand...

Unless the SCOTUS just goes and declares the new law unconstitutional. Many founding fathers thought too much leeway was given to the judiciary and I think they were right.

Things I would tell them to re-write / look out for.

1. Unrestrained Judiciary. Justices must be limited in service. To believe that a lifetime appointment makes them immune to corruption is foolish. There are many types of corruption ou tthere. The one prevalent in the Judiciary is more one of corruption of ideals than cash. Justices need to be held accountable to the people directly.

2. Remove the militia part from the 2A since future generations did not have to study basic reading comprehension.

3. Remove the part about being born in the USA making one an automatic citizen. At the time none of the founding fathers saw us occupying the land coast to coast and the problems we would face with an influx of illegal aliens.

4. Make the right to vote based on completion of a term of service in the armed forces of the state and or nation. Not compulsory service. Most people are incapable of appreciating what they did not sweat and bleed for, voting is a perfect example. If you are not going to stand up to defend the body politic then why should you get to tell those who do volunteer what they should do.

5. Tighten up the Eminent Domain language! "Public Good" is not increasing tax revenue for a town by destroying people's homes.

6. Freedom from unwarranted government searches means ALL searches beyond what can be seen visually without the molesting of ones person to disrobe or open packages.
 
I have always thought that it would be nice to have a Constitutional provision that said that new laws become void if an existing law can be shown to do the same thing.

Tim
 
Many founding fathers thought too much leeway was given to the judiciary and I think they were right.
Click to expand...
I agree with that sentiment. The problem is that there really isn't any way to recall a judge who has an established track record of making bad decisions. That alone isn't reason enough for impeachment in practice, even though I would argue that it is. That, and it becomes extremely difficult to erase the effects of bad decisions making themselves into bad precedents. Between the 2, you end up with the situation that we now have, where the legislature becomes secondary to an unaccountable judiciary who just make up law as they go along.
 
I would change the only part that corresponds to the technological changes we've seen over the last 100 years. The 1st amendment.

I can't say exactly how, but I would change the free speech part to crowbar a sizeable fraction of the radio spectrum out of corporate hands and into public hands. By public, I mean individuals. And I'd add that any medium that can be turned off or de-selected by any user shall be uncensorable.
 
Make the right to vote based on completion of a term of service in the armed forces of the state and or nation.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with that. The founders of this country thought that standing peacetime armies were a very bad idea, and I agree with them.

I've been toying with ideas for amendments to the constitution for a while now. Here are my ideas; the language isn't yet formal or refined, but this will give you the idea.

1. Clause 1: No corporation, profitable organization, or agent thereof may lobby an elected official; or contribute monetary funds, or other gifts or services beyond those which are available to the general public.
Clause 2: No elected or appointed official may accept gifts (including services), except from individuals who are friends or family, and could not gain disproportionately from the official's duties. [Badly worded, I know... intended as strict anti-bribery.]

2. Congress may pass no law to serve or benefit corporations above citizens, or to insure or support a corporate organization or business. The terms of copyrights and patents are restricted to not more than 20 years. Copyrights and patents shall be further restricted to apply only to public distribution for commercial purposes.

3. The rights of the people shall have precedence over the rights of public corporations or businesses.
Clause 1: Corporations and business are not guaranteed the same rights as people.
Clause 2: Criminal misconduct or infringement of civil rights by corporations shall result in personal criminal liability.
Clause 3: Corporate organizations have no right to avoid self-incrimination.

4. (Anti-secrecy amendment)
Clause 1. Congress shall be kept informed of all governmental programs which are classified or otherwise not disclosed to the public.
Clause 2. Briefings to congress shall include full disclosure of all program details to at least the entire congressional oversight committee. All political parties which have representation in Congress shall be allowed a member on each oversight committee.
Clause 3. No legal proceedings shall be halted by state secrets or due to classified evidence. Superior or Supreme court judges can subpoena and review any secret material in a closed court. The determination that evidence is a secret of the state shall not prevent timely justice.
Clause 4. No secret evidence may be used in any legal proceeding, nor may secret evidence be introduced without full disclosure to all parties.

5. Clause 1: The presidency is limited to one term not to exceed four years.
Clause 2: Senators are limited to not more than 2 terms in office.
Clause 3: Representatives are limited to not more than 4 terms in office.

6. Possee Comitatus: military force may not be deployed for combat, peacekeeping, policing, or any other armed or non-humanitarian duty within the borders of the United States, except for defense against a military threat from a foreign people or government. [Note: this precludes the use of military weaponry by non-military personnel, i.e. SWAT teams. Military force can be defined as the use of weaponry or equipment not legally available to civilians.]

7. No military force shall be deployed for combat duty outside the United States without a formal and public declaration of war by Congress, passed by 2/3 majority and with clear language describing the cause and purpose for hostilities. Exception may be made to deploy force to secure the persons of American citizens abroad. (I.e., rescue operations, but language must be introduced to make this clear and prevent long-term deployments; perhaps append "and return [the US citizens] home.)

8. Citizens and non-citizen residents are guaranteed the right of privacy; and own their private data and information, and may control the dissemination thereof.

9. All bills or articles introduced in Congress must address only a single subject and purpose. Riders are not allowed.

10. Clause 1: An individual's right to obtain, possess, and openly carry arms, including personal firearms, on public lands or their private property shall not be restricted, infringed, or abridged, except by due process of law for people convicted of violent crimes.
Clause 2: The ownership of personal firearms may not be further taxed or regulated by federal, state, or local governments, and no permit, registration, or special tax may be required by any entity for the purchase, possession, or use of personal firearms, beyond that necessary to ensure that a purchaser is not a convicted felon; however no records may be kept from such a background check.
[Arms include bows, knives, and swords. Personal firearms are any handgun or shoulder-fired weapon, firing non-explosive ballistic projectiles. States may regulate concealed carry on public land and the licensing of fully-automatic weapons. Perhaps also allow for no restriction on magazine capacity.]

11. In the event that a President is uncertain as to the legality of a bill which is delivered to him by Congress, he may present it to the Supreme Court, to ensure the bill for compliance with the Constitution and other federal law. If the Court should find the legislation in violation of the Constitution, the bill is void in it's entirety [but see my amendment #9] and shall be returned to congress with a letter of explanation.

12. Laws and other legal documents should be understandable to reasonable people. In a precedent-setting case where a reasonable person might consider the law ambiguous, no criminal penalty shall be afforded to the accused beyond remedial action. In other words, if the law isn't clear to a reasonable person (and hasn't been made clear by a previous precedent-setting court case), then if you're found guilty of breaking that law you can't be punished for it, beyond corrective action (so, in an example pertinent to this topic, if the law isn't clear about owning fully-automatic weapons, and you have one, they can take it away or modify it to be semi-automatic, but they can't fine you or throw you in prison).


Possibly also expand (via formal and clear definition) terms like "abridge", "infringe", and "restrict." For example, a taxation on certain items may not "abridge" or "infringe" one's right to own the item, but it would be a "restriction."

Other things that would benefit the country include:

Election reform: require a paper trail, use direct election instead of the electoral college, try to move away from the party system and take the money out of elections. I like the range voting idea (or something similar).

Judicial reform: unify the federal district courts, so that federal law is uniformly applied across the country; require Congress to convene an independent, non-partisan panel of legal/constitutional scholars and judges to review and report on legislation which is under consideration.

I like many of the other ideas described here, including: re-write the constitution to be less ambiguous, specific language for nuclear weapons (or chemical/bio weapons), tweaking eminent domain, clarifying the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses, restrict government (and non-gov't) information-gathering and storage of personal data, and a general restriction on bills that may be passed (not just by length, but also subject).
 
the second amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, anybody who is not a felon can own carry conceal and shoot any number or type of firearms. and when magazine is invented it's capacity shall never be restricted.
 
And anyone who is a felon can drive motor vehicle and own chainsaws, katanas, carving knives, and can even stock and equip a torture chamber in his own basement?

If you're going to discriminate, be consistent and go all the way. Prohibit them from owning anything not made of styrofoam. Not that it'll do any good, because such laws are inherently unenforceable, particularly against those criminals who are most dangerous.
 
Yeah, I'd remove the stupid disclaimer from 2A...

That part that was meant to excuse to right of the citizen to keep and bear arms by explaining that it was so we could have a "well regulated" (well equipped) militia...

I don't know why they felt that it was necessary to "excuse themselves" for guaranteeing this foundational (basic) right... :(


Sorta like... "It being necessary for a free flow of information... the right of the free press shall not be infringed." :p :p :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top