PDA

View Full Version : If you were to re-write the Constitution what changes woukd you make?



donttread
12-06-2014, 12:33 PM
Myself,
1) I would abolish the apportionment clause of the 16th amendment and make the BOR's clear even to Philadelphia lawyers.
2) I would abolish the tax code and move to at or fair tax without loopholes.

3) I would re word the Second Amendment to say something like this: All citizens of age have the right to keep and bear arms. The only exception to this is WMD's and persons who have been deemed unfit to carry based upon violent felony histories or profound mental impairment, which will be subject to appeals.

4)I would drastically alter the "interstate commerce clause" to clarify that this grants the feds no powers within state borders other than their enumerated powers.

5)I would end the prohibition of all drugs and mandate 99% of related tax revenues to prevention and treatment. I would earmark ALL sin taxes at 99%.
6) I would end the myth of corporate personhood
7) I would also ban current campaign financing practices and publically fund campaigns at levels low enough so as to require voters to do their own research. For example 10,000,000 per party for presidential campaigns ( plus a transportation budget) for a minimum of 6-8 parties.
8) I would ban the export and import of fossil fuels
9) I would clarify that the DOD should be just that a department of Defence" not offense.
10) I would bulldoze "K sreet

Bo-4
12-06-2014, 12:50 PM
Hmm, i'm with you on about 8 of 10. Who'd have thunk it? :)

donttread
12-06-2014, 01:12 PM
Hmm, i'm with you on about 8 of 10. Who'd have thunk it? :)

Really? Which two do you disagree with?

Peter1469
12-06-2014, 01:18 PM
The Constitution less needs a re-write as Americans need education as to what it means. That includes lawyers and judges.

donttread
12-06-2014, 05:31 PM
The Constitution less needs a re-write as Americans need education as to what it means. That includes lawyers and judges.

I'd go one step further Peter in that the Constitution needs to made "interpretation proof" for those who know full well what it means but simply don't care.

Peter1469
12-06-2014, 06:25 PM
I'd go one step further Peter in that the Constitution needs to made "interpretation proof" for those who know full well what it means but simply don't care.
Too easy. I could do that as a service to mankind.

Ransom
12-06-2014, 07:11 PM
Thank Christ our Founding Fathers preceded this thread start. I mean..... they understood the government's power comes from the consent of the governed.

Wow.

Mac-7
12-06-2014, 09:53 PM
Myself,
1) I would abolish the apportionment clause of the 16th amendment and make the BOR's clear even to Philadelphia lawyers.
2) I would abolish the tax code and move to at or fair tax without loopholes.

3) I would re word the Second Amendment to say something like this: All citizens of age have the right to keep and bear arms. The only exception to this is WMD's and persons who have been deemed unfit to carry based upon violent felony histories or profound mental impairment, which will be subject to appeals.

4)I would drastically alter the "interstate commerce clause" to clarify that this grants the feds no powers within state borders other than their enumerated powers.

5)I would end the prohibition of all drugs and mandate 99% of related tax revenues to prevention and treatment. I would earmark ALL sin taxes at 99%.
6) I would end the myth of corporate personhood
7) I would also ban current campaign financing practices and publically fund campaigns at levels low enough so as to require voters to do their own research. For example 10,000,000 per party for presidential campaigns ( plus a transportation budget) for a minimum of 6-8 parties.
8) I would ban the export and import of fossil fuels
9) I would clarify that the DOD should be just that a department of Defence" not offense.
10) I would bulldoze "K sreet

First I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

Then I would ban donttread from making any changes.

Ransom
12-07-2014, 08:13 AM
First I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

Then I would ban donttread from making any changes.

Agreed, especially the donttread part.

PolWatch
12-07-2014, 08:34 AM
I dunno...dontread seems to have some good ideas...certainly better than some of the changes/interpretations to the Constitution that we deal with now.

Ransom
12-07-2014, 09:23 AM
I dunno...dontread seems to have some good ideas...certainly better than some of the changes/interpretations to the Constitution that we deal with now.

Comrades PolWatch and donttread. I can see them scheming now eating hard bread and drinking vodka. You centralist folk amuse me.

PolWatch
12-07-2014, 09:29 AM
could I trade that for tequila & cornbread? :wink:

Ransom
12-07-2014, 09:50 AM
could I trade that for tequila & cornbread? :wink:

Ask Reichsmarschall donttread.

donttread
12-07-2014, 01:13 PM
Thank Christ our Founding Fathers preceded this thread start. I mean..... they understood the government's power comes from the consent of the governed.

Wow.

Not any longer it doesn't, it comes from the consent of the super rich as precedes all revolutions

donttread
12-07-2014, 01:14 PM
comrades polwatch and donttread. I can see them scheming now eating hard bread and drinking vodka. You centralist folk amuse me.

wtf?

CaveDog
12-07-2014, 01:16 PM
I can generally agree with your proposals although I'd have to look more closely at number 8. I would also favor examining state constitutions to find excerpts which have already worked well over the years.

As far as amending the 2nd amendment I would favor wording more like my home state of New Hampshire:

2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

I would also add that technological advances which contribute to parity in the exercise of that right are included. For example, prohibiting at least semi-automatic firearms would put an individual at a disadvantage in regard to the stated aims.

Also, the militia clause is separate in the NH constitution:

[Art.] 24. [Militia.] A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense, of a state.

Beyond that I might draw on the constitution of my home state again and integrate some ideas expressed in it into the federal constitution to more explicitly state some principles such as...

From the New Hampshire bill of rights:

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.
[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.
[Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.
[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
[Art.] 29. [Suspension of Laws by Legislature Only.] The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of them, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived therefrom, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.


-

Chris
12-07-2014, 01:19 PM
Thank Christ our Founding Fathers preceded this thread start. I mean..... they understood the government's power comes from the consent of the governed.

Wow.

Indeed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed", but, moreover, "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."

Chris
12-07-2014, 01:20 PM
Personally I grow more and more to simply prefer the Articles of Confederation.

Peter1469
12-07-2014, 01:22 PM
The Articles of Confederation failed. That is why there was a constitutional convention.

Chris
12-07-2014, 01:42 PM
The Articles of Confederation failed. That is why there was a constitutional convention.

Yes, they failed to provide a big enough centralized government, the Constitution was necessary for that, and now we have it.

Peter1469
12-07-2014, 01:44 PM
Yes, they failed to provide a big enough centralized government, the Constitution was necessary for that, and now we have it.

Not correct. They failed to provide an effective federal government.

The intent of the Constitution was a good thing. States have most power, and the federal government manages on the international scene.

Chris
12-07-2014, 02:02 PM
Not correct. They failed to provide an effective federal government.

The intent of the Constitution was a good thing. States have most power, and the federal government manages on the international scene.


Oh, it was correct, peter. I understand how those, like you, who prefer bigger centralized government over smaller decentralized, think the intent was good, despite the results.

Peter1469
12-07-2014, 02:43 PM
Oh, it was correct, peter. I understand how those, like you, who prefer bigger centralized government over smaller decentralized, think the intent was good, despite the results.

The p ought to be capitalized.

Individual
12-07-2014, 06:46 PM
There's some new Constitution proposals out there. You can find some online if you want to see what people are moving towards. Don't take the Constitution for the NewStates of America seriously. It's a horrific police state. I think someone planted it. I don't see all the people who are currently protesting police powers as being people who would accept such a Constitution. But some of the others are pretty interesting.

It looks like we'll be living in a direct democracy. I see acceptance for a President and some sort of legislature but generally they are given little authority to enact laws. We would have a legislature that can only propose laws. Once a President receives and signs a bill it would not become law but would simply come up for a referendum by the people. We would then vote on the proposed law in a general election.

Another thing I see in a proposed Constitution is that there are punishments for members of government who violate the rights expressed in a Bill of Rights. Our current Bill of Rights lists no punishments for violators and I think this has helped fuel the police state in this country. For example, it may say that they can't search us without a warrant but nothing happens to them when they do. So instead of acting like a law it only comes across as good advice.

I don't see a lot of things banned in these proposals. I do see an expansion of the rights of the people.

So basically, it's looking like our new Constitution will be a direct democracy with an expanded list of freedoms and punishments for those in government who would violate our freedom. Once we hammer out the details of government and form a single document we will install the new Constitution and have a new country.

Peter1469
12-07-2014, 07:17 PM
Considering the numbers of people who vote in the US, Americans have zero interest in direct democracy.


There's some new Constitution proposals out there. You can find some online if you want to see what people are moving towards. Don't take the Constitution for the NewStates of America seriously. It's a horrific police state. I think someone planted it. I don't see all the people who are currently protesting police powers as being people who would accept such a Constitution. But some of the others are pretty interesting.

It looks like we'll be living in a direct democracy. I see acceptance for a President and some sort of legislature but generally they are given little authority to enact laws. We would have a legislature that can only propose laws. Once a President receives and signs a bill it would not become law but would simply come up for a referendum by the people. We would then vote on the proposed law in a general election.

Another thing I see in a proposed Constitution is that there are punishments for members of government who violate the rights expressed in a Bill of Rights. Our current Bill of Rights lists no punishments for violators and I think this has helped fuel the police state in this country. For example, it may say that they can't search us without a warrant but nothing happens to them when they do. So instead of acting like a law it only comes across as good advice.

I don't see a lot of things banned in these proposals. I do see an expansion of the rights of the people.

So basically, it's looking like our new Constitution will be a direct democracy with an expanded list of freedoms and punishments for those in government who would violate our freedom. Once we hammer out the details of government and form a single document we will install the new Constitution and have a new country.

donttread
12-07-2014, 07:50 PM
I can generally agree with your proposals although I'd have to look more closely at number 8. I would also favor examining state constitutions to find excerpts which have already worked well over the years.

As far as amending the 2nd amendment I would favor wording more like my home state of New Hampshire:

2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

I would also add that technological advances which contribute to parity in the exercise of that right are included. For example, prohibiting at least semi-automatic firearms would put an individual at a disadvantage in regard to the stated aims.

Also, the militia clause is separate in the NH constitution:

[Art.] 24. [Militia.] A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense, of a state.

Beyond that I might draw on the constitution of my home state again and integrate some ideas expressed in it into the federal constitution to more explicitly state some principles such as...

From the New Hampshire bill of rights:

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.
[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.
[Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.
[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
[Art.] 29. [Suspension of Laws by Legislature Only.] The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of them, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived therefrom, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.


-

Interesting post