If you were given the power to write a new Constitution and were told that that whatever you wrote would be ratified and universally accepted within the current US borders, what would you write? Give a brief outline.
If you were given the power to write a new Constitution and were told that that whatever you wrote would be ratified and universally accepted within the current US borders, what would you write? Give a brief outline.
a blank slate
I'd make a nice 3-slide powerpoint and not use a font smaller than 24 point. All the rules would have to fit on those three slides. I don't know yet what rules I would include, however.
I wouldn't change a thing. Maybe update the language a little.
NO FATTIES!
Bold and underline amendment 10.
Things are going pretty well, so I don't think I'd change anything really substantive. I think I would probably get rid of the 11th, 18th and 21st Amendments, and the parts permitting slavery.
lol
I would use crayons while soiling my mummies panties.
Not funny, bro.
Find some way to limit the influence of the two party system.
Shorten it to the initial text, the signatures and the 1st ten amendments, that's all you need
I would break up the First Amendment into two. It deals with primarily two rights - one regarding religion and one regarding the right of the people (and the press, which is made up of the people, not the government) to speak freely and question the government's actions. These are too disparate to be in one "right" of the Bill of Rights imo.
It currently reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I would have made Amendment One:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Furthermore, neither the Executive nor Judicial branches shall interpret any Article of the Constitution of the United States of America or enforce any Law passed by Congress in the context of any religious text. Finally, no Government official, elected or appointed, may force his own religious belief on any citizen in any way."
...or something like that.
and Amendment Two:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
# 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_representationI would change the first ammendment to say something like, "America was founded on Christian principles and by devout Christians and thus is a Christian nation. America's government is based solely on The Holy Bible and thus every person within this nation, citizen or visitor, will have Christian doctrine forced upon them. America is a fascist state. Oh yeah, and science sucks! derrrrrrr"
You people are too concerned with the amendments. How about the articles? Do we really need a lower and upper house with equal powers when they are both chosen by the same people? Do we need the executive to be separate from the legislature? Do we need a winner take all electoral system? Do we want judges to be able to overturn the will of the people? Do we need a Constitution at all? The United Kingdom gets by fine without one.
Great question! While I do not have a great answer, I'd like to try to further frame the problem.
Monarchy was dumped for democracy in the West because people desired more freedom. But in practice, it hasn't worked out that way. We literally now have government people telling us how we should sneeze. We have far less freedom than the colonists under King George.
The problem is inherent in any democratically run organization, as 'public choice' theorists have laid out. Thus unions, which are democratically-run, are run for the benefit of union leaders, not individual members. And public companies for senior execs, not stockholders.
We could tighten the Constitution, say the Bill of Rights, but we need to look at how we decide who gets to interpret & administer it.
It would look like a piece of used toilet paper and be worth just as much.
Oh, wait, I guess that's not much different from now in terms of value.
TCB wrote:
You people are too concerned with the amendments. How about the articles? Do we really need a lower and upper house with equal powers when they are both chosen by the same people? Do we need the executive to be separate from the legislature? Do we need a winner take all electoral system? Do we want judges to be able to overturn the will of the people? Do we need a Constitution at all? The United Kingdom gets by fine without one.
Good points.
We probably do not need two houses of Congress, but we do need proportional representation of the people. In today's society, we do not need each State to have it's say in Congress. People just don't think like that anymore, the population is far too mobile and people move around all the time, and commerce has become global (as opposed to just national or state-to-state). So, basically, that eliminates the Senate. The problem then is that we have a Congress of 2-year-term people. I don't like 2 year terms AT ALL. Look at what happened in 2008 and now 2010 elections. Both elections were very reactionary. Huge swings in numbers of political parties offers no consistency at all, offers no ability for the Government to actually work and get anything done. Yes, things change, and our country needs to adapt to a changing world, but not a knee-jerk fashion. No, the law-making process should be the steadying hand, not the end of a swinging pendulum of fickle public opinion. Therefore, Congress should have 4-5-6 year terms, possibly with some overlapping the way the Senate does it now.
The electoral college HAS TO GO!!!!!!!!! That is the worst remnant of antiquity in our Government today. Again, this goes to the idea of a nation of citizens electing a leader, rather than States. If we can count the vote, then how damn hard is it to implement the will of the citizens?! Popular vote.
Toward your question about judges overruling the will of the people - that's a tough one. Sometimes the will of the people can be wrong. If people vote for a law that is in direct violation of the Constitution, the judge has the DUTY to overturn that law. Now, if enough of the people say they want it, we have a mechanism to amend the Constitution (what is it 60% or 2/3 majority?). In that case, well.....it is the overwhelming will of the people, and well....the Government should serve its people.
All races, peoples and religions have freedom and equal rights under the constitution
No person or nation may be forcefully evicted from their property or lands
The Federal government will not make law based upon religion
No citizen shall face execution without absolute certainty that they have committed a heinous crime as ultimately judged by the Supreme Court of the United States
Only a well organised militia has the right to bear arms
The federal government must not be indebted to any institution or foreign nation