If you could completely re-write the US Constitution, what would it look like?

No citizen of the United States may join the military service of another nation without forfeiting US citizenship and permanent residency privileges for life.

No permanent resident of the United States may join the military service of another nation without forfeiting permanent residency and US citizenship privileges for life.

Erase the "general welfare" language.

Absolish the interstate commerce clause

Explicitly forbid the creation of a central bank.

Explicitly forbid economic regulations of any kind.

sure bert wrote:

2. 2 years of mandatory combat infantry military service required upon election into any federal position.

So if you were in, say, the cavalry or the artillery you would be right out? Or if you had flat feet?

sdfasdfa wrote:

I would make the Bill of Rights even stronger. I feel like Congress has no problem getting around it today. All this current homeland security stuff is getting a little out of hand. There are definitely ways to keep us safe while still respecting privacy.

James Madison originally resisted a Bill of Rights because he believed that anything not in it would be interpreted as not being a right. So things like health care and marriage are not considered rights simply because they are not written in the Constitution. I think it would make more sense for the government to just have a primary mandate to protect the human rights of all citizens of the country and then allow each generation to determine what a human right is.

TCB wrote:

James Madison originally resisted a Bill of Rights because he believed that anything not in it would be interpreted as not being a right. So things like health care and marriage are not considered rights simply because they are not written in the Constitution.

So . . . you must have missed the Ninth Amendment. Btw, marriage is a right under the Constitution.

I think it would make more sense for the government to just have a primary mandate to protect the human rights of all citizens of the country and then allow each generation to determine what a human right is.

How is this any different from our current 14th Amendment jurisprudence?

People always say "where in the Constitution does it guarantee.....?" as if you're rights don't exist because it does not explicitly say it there in the Constitution. Instead we should just err on the side of giving people rights and allow each generation to say what exactly human rights are. The idea should be vague so that it can evolve throughout the coming history. In 100 years people may decide that robots with artificial intelligence that have emotions and can feel empathy for humans and other animals should not have the right to make political decisions or have weapons. 200 years from now, people may decide that artificial intelligence is no different than organic intelligence.

TCB wrote:

# wrote:

Find some way to limit the influence of the two party system.

This is the only way to do that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

Ummm...ever heard of

?

TCB wrote:

People always say "where in the Constitution does it guarantee.....?" as if you're rights don't exist because it does not explicitly say it there in the Constitution. Instead we should just err on the side of giving people rights and allow each generation to say what exactly human rights are. The idea should be vague so that it can evolve throughout the coming history. In 100 years people may decide that robots with artificial intelligence that have emotions and can feel empathy for humans and other animals should not have the right to make political decisions or have weapons. 200 years from now, people may decide that artificial intelligence is no different than organic intelligence.

This is basically what we have. If you disagree, then let me know where in the Constitution it provides for a right to gay sex?

An Historian wrote:

This is basically what we have. If you disagree, then let me know where in the Constitution it provides for a right to gay sex?

Same place it provides for a right to straight sex. As well as the right to pick your own nose.

The Congress shall have power to ban any post-season collegiate football games that do not involve a playoff.

whatchamacallit wrote:

An Historian wrote:

This is basically what we have. If you disagree, then let me know where in the Constitution it provides for a right to gay sex?

Same place it provides for a right to straight sex. As well as the right to pick your own nose.

What section is that? I've read it several times but I just can't find it!

I wouldn't be surprised if an anti-nose picking law was upheld as Constitutional!

And before any of you people, right and left, who just love to bloviate about homosexuality hijack the thread, I am not arguing one way or the other about whether homosexual sex, or any other activity, should be protected under the Constitution, but only that there are rights that are protected by the Constitution that are not mentioned in said document, e.g. gay sex. If you can find any right to gay sex mentioned in the Constitution, or to straight sex or nose picking, I will eat my shoe!

Yeah you're right and I mixed myself up. Courts should have the power to overrule a legislative action that violates human rights even if said right is not mentioned in the Constitution. But having an expressed mandate would train the populace to hold human rights above all else.

The fact that the Bible endorses much of what I might consider "goodness" does not mean that it is the source of those ideas.

As an atheist, my conceptions of morality are probably not that different from yours (though I am sure there are a few stark distinctions). That does not mean I desire to live in a "Christian" nation; it means I desire to live in a secular nation that upholds certain rights and freedoms, largely (though not exclusively) those that the founding fathers, in a secular fashion, decreed instrumental.

If you think that morality is derived from religion, then I won't be able to persuade you otherwise, but I can certainly attest that my own morality is not derivative of Christianity.

"Congress shall make no law."

TCB wrote:

This is the only way to do that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

That would do NOTHING to stop the two-party system.

sure bert wrote:

3. Foreign entities cannot purchase or own real estate in the US.

Good idea.

Let's also make is so that people who "look funny" or "don't look like us" can't by property either.

White people only!

Dumbass.

I'd probably mandate that districts be set by some independent third party and not by the politicians themselves. The details are tricky, but other countries have made this work.

Limit the President to a single six-year term (one of the good ideas in the CSA Constitution, IMHO).

I'd limit the ability of the House and Senate to write their own procedural rules. They should get *some* say, but I think the filibuster, for example, is bogus. Sufficient time should be allowed for debate and then it should be voted on. Delaying tactics are not good.

I'd probably mandate that each bill refer to one subject only, although I'm not sure that it would make that much of a difference.

I'd specify that the Constitution is a living constitution and should be interpreted in that light (originalism has always struck me as silly). Oh, and screw state's rights too.

I'm tempted to do away with the Presidency and have a Prime Minister instead. Part of me wants to make the Prime Minister elected by the *minority* party, since the US seems to do better when the President and Congress are of different parties, but I think that that's just being annoying.

I'd specify that licensed, registered gun ownership is ok, but the government has the right to make more stringent requirements for ownership of certain classes of weapons (I call this my "Irritate the NRA *and* the Democrats" clause).

I'd make gay marriage legal. Why the hell not?

I'd require that anyone who says that tax cuts will pay for themselves without actually *proving* it be kicked in the balls repeatedly (females should receive a purple nurple).

The government should tax relgious institutions as they tax businesses. Charitable works are excepted.

The US military should be used for national defense. Troops may be sent overseas only in response to a direct, overt military threat by another nation or as part of an international team overseen by a separate organization (i.e. the UN).

M.C. Confusing wrote:

TCB wrote:

This is the only way to do that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

That would do NOTHING to stop the two-party system.

You are completely wrong. If a libertarian party can get 8% of the vote in a general election, then it will get 8% of the seats in the legislature and other parties will have to cooperate with them to get things done. Right now, there needs to be a strong concentration of libertarians in one district to get a seat in congress. Locality thus becomes irrelevant, people stop strategically voting and vote the way they want because it actually does make a difference in government.

An Historian wrote:

whatchamacallit wrote:

Same place it provides for a right to straight sex. As well as the right to pick your own nose.

What section is that? I've read it several times but I just can't find it!

I wouldn't be surprised if an anti-nose picking law was upheld as Constitutional!

And before any of you people, right and left, who just love to bloviate about homosexuality hijack the thread, I am not arguing one way or the other about whether homosexual sex, or any other activity, should be protected under the Constitution, but only that there are rights that are protected by the Constitution that are not mentioned in said document, e.g. gay sex. If you can find any right to gay sex mentioned in the Constitution, or to straight sex or nose picking, I will eat my shoe!

This is specifically what the 9th ammendment is for.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."