If we were given an opportunity to revise the Constitution.. what should be done?

Just curious....

I've got a real problem with pardons.

Edit- It's value comes from lessening the degree of over-punished criminals. But I believe it's flaws outweigh it's benefits. We wouldn't have a few PNAC'ers on our hands if it weren't for pardons. (Not sure about that last part. I thought some of this administration had been pardoned in Nixon's term.)

before we start any campaigns to change it again.

But that's just me. :)

Despite some of its flaws, on the whole, the Constitution is still a remarkably prescient, intelligent document. Let's try following it first before we talk of changing it.

delay. Without the executive branch being held to accountability for real crimes of office this nation will NEVER know real democracy.

This leaving it up to discretion manipulated by a protective presscorps is total BULLSHIT and as undemocratic as it gets.

At the very least, the pardon should be clarified to only apply to convicted criminals -- pre-emptive pardons should be verboten. Ideally, it should also be impossible for the president to pardon himself or anyone who worked for him/her in his term.

Personhood was never granted to corporations (see T. Hartmann's work)-the precedent traces back to a summary with no legal force. This status should be made explicit in the Constitution. Yes, it would cause disruption, and that would have to be dealt with earnestly.

Personhood is what gives corporations rights. Yes, lots of coporations abuse those rights, lots of individuals abuse the rights they have too. Should the Washington Post be deprived of the right of freedom of the press. Richard Nixon would have been in pig heaven with that. How about search and seizure, if CBS runs an investigation into the President's National Guard service, don't you think they'd like to know that he can't just send some goons over to ransack the office and see what they find?

I haven't had time to read through all of this thread, but this post grabbed me. Be careful of the law of unintended consequences.

the first amendment already covers freedom of the press, and both examples you cited are actions of the press, with no relevance to corporate personhood.

the USSC to agree with you.

to strip corporations of personhood.

and specify that individual votes, not the States' delegates, determine the presidency.

suggestion. Its time has come to be abolished.

One American, one vote. He/She with the most votes wins. Easy peasy.

Hell, I'd even be cool with keeping the EC, provided the electoral votes could be divided based on the public vote. As someone who lives in predominantly red state (Kansas), splitting the delegates would at least allow the blue voters' voices to be heard.

I also think DC should get a vote in Congress.

The Supreme Court in a 1974 decision said that they are a violation of the First Amendment. I don't agree. But because that court was far more liberal back then, it will be a cold day in hell before we ever get that decision overturned.

There aren't but a few changes that could effect great change in this country.

Publicly funded campaigns are great, except for the fact that anyone can opt out of the publicly funded system if they have enough money.

In the UK, candidates for parliament are only allowed to spend around the equivalent of $40,000 depending on the size of their constituency. As a result, TV networks are forced to give them cheap air time so that their $40,000 can actually get them something.

Most candidates for Congress could easily raise $40,000 without the help of PACs, and more importantly, any incumbent could easily raise $40,000. If the spending limit was set at $40,000 other laws like forcing TV stations to give them cheap air time would soon follow.

Either limit the spending or eliminate the "opt out" clause. Every candidate should be on equal footing. Money should not be the deciding factor in an election ... EVER!

Campaign limits. Got it. And it makes sense now that I think of it. A level playing field.

As it happens, we can revise it - in fact, the Founding Fathers revised it ten times immediately after bringing the document into existance...

I'd like to see gun laws clarified - the second amendment is rather oddly-worded.

"Congress shall pass no law which infringes on the rights of individuals to peacefully form families as they see fit and to make their own medical
decisions in consultation with their physician, including decisions about the relief of end of life suffering."

or something to that effect.

Can be had only by those of woman born and by no others....

that eventually the "Clone Party" will rise up and defeat us all? :)

"A person must be born before they can have any legal status," that should cover it. I don't understand the whole "rights of the unborn" thing because it directly interferes with the rights of the woman, who is already born. Do you suddenly lose your personhood when you become pregnant? :shrug:

The reason I oppose what you defined is because, probably within the next 5 years, a human being will be born from an artificial womb, outside of a woman's body. This will most likely be related to fertility treatments, or to help women who cannot carry fetuses to term. In a case like that, such a human being would be a "non-person" in this country.

corporate personhood.

Nothing to do with born/unborn issues.

He specified "born of a woman, and no others", as I said, technology advances, and such language as this can cause problems in the near future.

Otherwise, we would never get * out.

edited: typo :blush:

:rofl:

Also ... a complete psychiatric evaluation and the results MUST be made public! :crazy:

- No corporate personhood
- Term limits on SC judges. Also, they MUST answer ALL of the questions asked by Congress during their confirmation hearings. If they don't, they can't be confirmed.
- Public financing for all elections as well as time limits on campaigns. It's not right that our elected officials begin campaigning for their next election two years in advance. They should do the work they're paid to do!
- Spell it out for the fundies - church and state are separate and Christianity is not our national religion.
- Eliminate presidential signing statements. Either veto it or sign it - you can't have it both ways.
- Marriage is for any two adults who wish to make a legal commitment to each other. Race, religion and gender are irrelevant.
- Equal rights amendment that covers EVERYONE. We don't need separate amendments to cover race, gender, religion or sexual orientation - just say everyone is equal under the law ... period!
- Fairness Doctrine - 'nuff said
- Universal healthcare
- All matters relating to reproduction are to be decided by the person who will be reproducing.
- A national standard for elections, voting machines, recounts, etc., and of course, a voter verified paper ballot. Election machines can not use "secret" proprietary software and private corporations can not control them.
- Net Neutrality (True, we can pass a law - but an amendment is far more difficult to overturn ... and you know they would always be trying to get it overturned.)
- Spell it out for the fascists - no Unitary Executive.
- Eliminate the electoral college.


I could add more ... but those are the biggies. B-)

Only other thing I can think of at this late hour, is adding something in there about election tampering.

Like.. if we've got to use electronic machines, then the government must take them completely out of the hands of PRIVATE BUSINESSES !!!!

It's insane when you think that our votes are being handled by a private corporation!!

Like the limit on SC justices. Another alternative: an age requirement: say that they be at least 60.

It might also be a good idea to increase the age requirements for President and Congress. Life expectancy being what it is now compared to the 18th century, we aren't getting the wisest people - and we're stuck with Clarence Thomas for life - so no one should go on the court as young as 43 or whatever he was.

Remove the lifetime appointments, make their terms limited to 10, 15 or 20 years, then they can never serve on any federal court again. And, cut their damn retirement benefits!

Especially keep the Electoral College, I don't want New york ,Dallas, and LA electing the president.......Let the small states have their say............

Without the electoral college, NY, Dallas & LA would have no vote whatsoever. The vote of an individual in Nowhere Wyoming would have the exact same weight as that of any New Yorker.

Yes there are millions of Americans in the big cities, but there are millions of Americans living in the sticks too. The population of the 50 largest US cities is I think < 50m compared with 300m+ nationwide.

with it's 12 voters if he or she can just go to NYC and Chicago and Miami???

Won't win the election for you. The numbers just aren't there.

If half the voting age population of NYC turns out to vote and you win 50.1% of the vote you get 3.2 million votes


If you got similar numbers in LA you would net another 1.7 million votes

Chicago gets you another 1.5 million

Houston gets you 1.1 million



So from the 5 largest cities you get 9.5 million votes.......

So how many small states does it take to equal 9.5 million + 1 votes?

California, Texas, New York, Florida & Illinois have a combined 168 electoral votes. How many small states does it take to equal that? :eyes:

The answer is that it takes the electoral votes of the 30 smallest states combined to approximate the electoral vote total for the 5 most populous states.

Why are you arguing against the Founders intent??? I think they were smarter than both of us put together.

it was done because it was the only way to get the smaller states to ratify the constitution.

The small states ALREADY get incredible power by being given equal represenation in the Senate (and thus, over the judicial branch, as the Senate approves federal judgeships).

Why should they continue to have extraordinary control over the executive branch, too?

But the fact is, it will never change - because the small states that already enjoy extraordinary power won't ever give it up.

I beg to differ. And the founders also provided a means of altering the constitution, so obviously they understood that their intent at the time wouldn't be all that relevant in the centuries to come.

Is the vote of urban dwellers somehow worth less than votes of rural dwellers?

exists for a reason...........The Founders were incredibly brilliant.

in this country. Part of the problem is that the Electoral College is a literal reflection of how many House and Senate members that are in Congress, in addition to D.C. The problem is that the numbers of House members has been fixed since the early 20th century, and since that time our population has more than tripled. As a result, popular vote and electoral votes will disagree more often as time goes on.

There are two solutions to this problem, one is to get rid of the cap on House membership, and have a set ratio of representatives/constituents that doesn't change. This would increase House membership, and the size of the Electoral College, making the Electoral College more accurately reflect the will of the people. Or we can get rid of the Electoral College entirely.

And let's face it, at some point you run out of room for desks.

First, it may become slightly more partisan, then again, it could also become more multi-party as well. In addition to this, representatives who represent smaller constituents will more accurately reflect the opinions of that constituency.

Besides, it doesn't have to be a dramatic increase, all at once, we can set the ratio at about 1 rep for ever 500,000 people. This would increase the amount of Representatives in the House to about 600 Representatives, hardly unwieldy.

True, the number of representatives is fixed, but the representatives themselves are reapportioned between the states every decade, so states which gain relative population gain congressmen at the expense of states which lose population.

To give an example, 4 states have been admitted into the Union since the cap has been in place, as a result, all states have lost representatives, regardless of actual population. In addition, states may lose representatives if thier populations are static, or don't increase at a enough to warrant additional Representatives.

I use to be for the elimination, but now I think the main problem is redistricting. Look at Tom Delay and how Texas was redistricted. It was a growing future blue state until he messed with it.

Just thought you ought to know.

or even appears to be stacking the deck with power plays and good old boy networks.

In other words, smarmy, belligerent obstructors get to leave before creating more suffering for the country. I can't believe that we've allowed them to do so much damage. The Constitution should be altered to prevent such purely selfish action and motivation, or even the hint of it, as swiftly and cleanly as is possible.

Then again, Americans are only interested in Personal Convenience. BushCo are good at going slow, and avoiding Personal Inconveniences which would truly unify and mobilize us against them in any meaningful manner.

"That which disturbs your soul should not be suffered. CAST IT OUT!" -Boyd Rice/NON

You should offer this up as a poll question, Peake. I wonder how many DUers would side with or against this.

will we tolerate instead of retrieving our country?

Nothing will happen until large numbers of peoples' Personal Inconvenience becomes threatened. Unfortunately, humans are remarkably adaptable, and we have grown to tolerate a vast amount of lies and crap from persons who should demonstrate none.

This of course is too much to ask for and is funny in the context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps someday we will look back upon this period and shudder, as I already shudder. We are capable of so much more, why do we allow thieves to squat in the White House for years? Because it has to get worse before we'll make it better. This is our way.

I would abolish private education for K-12 and merit testing in public schools. We keep saying that we're all in this together, but until we're really all in the boat together it will be to easy to maintain socio-economic/racial stratification. Go for the children first...

:hide:

No fixed terms like we have now.

2 years is too short for Congress. All they can do is campaign. Make it 5.
6 years is too long for Senators. Make it 5 also.

Election for President is held 120 days after a vote of no confidence passes in EITHER chamber (maybe by 2/3 majority?)

Anyone that thinks that we have a representative democracy at a ratio of one Congresscritter to 691,000 people is delusional. And the Senate? There it's 16,000,000 people per Senator for California.

What a fucking joke.

But, since it's a hypothetical question...

Simplify the 2nd amendment by rephrasing it to read...
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Revise/rewrite the 14th amendment to clearly exclude citizenship at birth to the children of illegal aliens.

Revise the Commerce Clause in a manner so that the federal government can not abuse it in a manner that conflicts with the 10th amendment...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

any administration deemed incompetent by the people. Some type of vote of "no confidence"
Don't know how to structure such a thing, I'd leave it to the constitutional scholars. Perhaps in line with the British system. As of now, we the people(not congress) have no say in the removal of those in government who do not represent the principals for which they were elected.

...must be a person, not an entity.

Part 1: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/arendt/75

Part 2: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/arendt/74

The existing political system has been both exploited by and
overwhelmed by modern economies, corporate media, and a $50B
black budget. It is totally broken.

We need a new Constitution with a self-defense system against the
kind of big money/bought media/spook intimidation that has
been running its slow-motion coup d'etat for the past twenty years.

And Al Gore is right, it will have to run on the Internet.

arendt

Remove Congresses authority to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal

Though I think it is implicitly guaranteed...

And I would rewrite the second amendment for clarity...

Long live Puralism and
Create something to abolish 2-party idiocy, oops dictatorship!
And put in PUBLIC FIANCING of campaigns!
Enforce 20 year review of good/bad corporations are doing, they are not PERSONS without RESPONSIBLITY!

But here's what I've got in mind.

Make the DoJ nonpartisan and make the AG a position appointed by Congress not the President. Also make the Attorney General's term something like ten years no renomination so you get both consistency as well as something that does not coincide with presidential terms.

Abolish the electoral college.

Make it so that for troops to be deployed outside of the US to require an act of Congress for peaceful deployments with set time limits in said act. Also make it so that for troops to be deployed into a combat situation requires a declaration of war and a declaration of war requires a 75% majority in both houses of congress. Both of the above would apply to any armed force of soldiers larger than 100 troops in a country.

Put in the ERA.