Any constitution should have a requirement that it be re-evaluated and re ratified periodically. I’d say a minimum of every 50 years, but would prefer a shorter period.
As it is, the US Constitution is done, finished, and will never be changed, even though every aspect of life has changed since it was written.
Well Acid Lamp, I have to give you credit for detail. Can’t see where you’re getting credit for practical. Heck, how would you even pass a budget?
And you’ve got an awful lot of faith that the people will thoroughly study the volumes of proposed legislation and will always consider each issue objectively ignoring any personal prejudices. I think that may be a bit optimistic.
Qin, you realize there is no such thing as an actual “moment of conception,” don’t you?
It also sounds like you want to kill women who have abortions under any circumstances.
If a 10 year old girl is raped and impregnanted, and that little girl gets an abortion, you’re saying you would want her executed? Good idea. We don’t want to be a nation of heartless murderers. I’m sure Jesus would say to kill her too.
Not really. What I’m aiming at is ensuring that the public will, ignorant, bigoted, and stupid as it occasionally is- is recorded and reflected by our lawmakers. Congress is welcome, and expected to vote against the public will as they see fit. If they do, then they are rolling the dice. If they are successful, they will look the better for ignoring populist opinion and standing firm. If they fail, then they are subject to whatever comeuppance the voters choose to punish them with for their stubbourness. I expect my congress to work, not endlessly debate talking points, or quibble over legal procedure. My goal is to create a constitution that provides* simple and through* guidance as to how the government should function, and also protect all the rights of the citizens it serves.
To use your example of budget, Say that we take our poll and it shows that the people would like to reduce funding for the defense department. Instead they’d rather their money be spent in education. When the time comes to allocate funds to these departments congress can and will vote as they see fit. If however, they continually snub the will of the people, they will be directly subject to their actions in each regard. This is designed to reduce party line voting and make them accountable for each action they make.
A clearer example would be an amendment that would allow polyamorous families to file jointly and benefit from tax breaks. The public is polled and it shows that 68% are against such a measure, deeming it unfair. Congress decides to approve the measure anyway. By the way I’ve set it up, the people can petition for revision once a year ensuring they have their say as their own representatives have decided not to reflect the majority consensus of their constituents.
Now on the other hand, suppose that congress votes in accordance with the people and the measure is defeated. In this case, congress will not hear this issue again for a minimum of three years. THIS is designed reduce endless introduction of the same issue bills to argue every year.
Lastly, let us suppose that the people have approved of this measure. Congress votes in accordance and the tax code is changed. Regardless of opposition, it will not be heard again for three years, allowing people time to adjust to, and see the results of the new law. The public are easily swayed, quick to forget, and often do not fully understand an issue. THAT is why I want their will reflected, but protected against dishonest debate, and knee jerk reactions.
And the overall cost of all these elections, including campaigning and advertising, would be..?
I’m not big on raw democracy anyway. The public is stupid. If it was up to the people, the US would have been a heriditary monarchy with a Christian state religion and we’d still have slavery.
Campaigning would be entirely privately financed. It is no big deal to add in a few more boxes to check the relevant issues to the local election ballots. Ideally, we should be looking for ways to allow people to register their opinion on such issues electronically. Perhaps they could sign in with their ID and click their choices?
Because privately-financed politics has been shown to work so well under the present system in the US…?
Pssst…the word for today is Amendments. Changed 27 times already.
Not necessarily. That depends on the inherent concepts that the constitutional convention starts from. For a liberal republic, the constitution defines the limited authority of the government. For other power structures, it may restrict or unrestrict what the convention decides upon.
Ultimately, a constitution must lay out sufficiently clearly the method of government, the running of the government, the definition of citizen – and how to revise the constitution.
I would limit states population so that if a state if larger than one million people it breaks up into two smaller states. I would limit the national government to dealing with foreign policy, a national army, and disputes between states. To ensure this I would cap taxes going to the federal government at 5% of income except during times of national emergency. I would keep the ban on states treating people from other states differently than thier own.
And how do you propose to bridge the gap between the one-sentence poll and the thousands of pages long budget? And if congress goes along with whatever idea the people support for defense/budget funding does that mean those two areas can’t be voted on again for three years?
How much time do you suppose is wasted on that now that your quarterly votes won’t be an even bigger waste of time and money?
And what if whatever kneejerk thing that everyone went along with turns out to be WRONG. Just cause it passed in the heat of the moment we can’t undo it for three years? No matter what the consequences?
311 states, 8 of which would be contained in New York City?
I don’t think so.
You know if you just tweaked that a little so the states collected the taxes and then gave that money to the Fed you could give it a catchy name like a confederation. And instead of a constitution you could have articles.
I don’t. The public doesn’t get to weigh in on every piddly line item. On issues like budget, they would simply get to indicate their general preferences.
It doesn’t seem to cost a ridiculous amount to run an online poll, we do that all the time here. I see no reason why we couldn’t conduct such polls in the same manner. Want to make your choice known? Go online yourself, or to the library, sign in with your ID and check the box. They are not the same as ballots for office. It is a record of the public will, not an overriding mandate.
Yes. Exactly. We live with our decisions and learn from them. I should hope that the knowledge of this reality would encourage saner policy making.
The US Constitution was developed in a context of very sophisticated existing legal structures and established governments. Essentially, the states were completely functional. In addition, it was written at a time when international relations were very different. Finally, it is nearly impossible to amend, which most people writing constitutions view as negative.
The context that most new nations now arise in are very different- no existing legal structures or established government, or possibly both. New states must integrate themselves into existing international treaties. Therefore, most new countries need a constitution that is far more comprehensive than the US one.
And other scholars view it as positive. Tyranny of the majority and all that.
I find it hard to call a 230yo document “impossible to amend” when it has been done 27 times, 10 times immediately after initial passage. The fact that one amendment was passed, then repealed 14 years later, suggests that it might be too easy to amend.
What countries are now writing a constitution but have no established government at present? That would imply anarchy.
I never claimed it was “impossible to amend.” I said “nearly impossible to amend.” So, more realistically its been amended 17 times in 230 years. If you compare the US process to the Constitutional Amendment process with most other countries, the US process is far more difficult. And I would be very interested to read up on scholars who believe that Constitutions of new countries should be more difficult to amend than the US.
Currently, only one country is writing a Constitution- South Sudan. It is fairly close to anarchy.
Missed edit window- also meant to include:
Obviously, the US model served as inspiration for many of the constitutions that have been formed over the last 200 years. My point is that what goes into constitution writing now is a much more diverse set of objectives than it was in the 1700s. Countries that need to catch up to international standards on a huge array of issues very fast and usually use their constitution writing process as a means of doing that. Very different than the US experience