(I suspect this thread has been done before, but not (afaik) for a while, so here we go…)
How (if at all) would you change the US Constitution?
I would:
(1) Radically change the way presidential elections work, to get rid of the current catch-22 which faces third party candidates. If 10% of the populace REALLY want Pat Buchanan, but would be happy with Bush, 10% REALLY want Nader, but would be happy with Kerry, 10% really want the Libertarian candidate but have a strong preference if it came down to Kerry vs. Bush, 35% REALLY want Kerry and 35% REALLY want Bush, there should be some fair way of combining all those data points, allowing the popularity of third party candidates to be visible, and still allow the candidate who is actually preferred by more people win. Whether it’s “instant runoff” voting or some other similar scheme, something definitely needs to change. And while we’re at it, get rid of the electoral college, and standardize on an auditable touchscreen system that produces a verifiable paper output.
(2) Radically change the way at least one of the houses of congress has its seats apportioned. In the age of the internet, geographic districts are silly and antiquated, and open up all sorts of possibilities of corruption and abuse. Allow each voter some number of votes, which that voter can distribute however he or she likes among any number of political parties. Then those parties get seats in proportion to their votes. It should be a bit more sophisticated than that, but basically, if there are 10% of Americans whose most important passion in life is (say) English being a national language, than they ought to be able to fill 10% of one house of congress with people from the English-as-a-national-language party.
(3) Rewrite many clauses of the bill of rights from scratch so that their meaning is a lot clearer. Decide what the second amendment means, and say precisely what it means, without vague references to militias. If there’s a right to privacy, SAY so, and if not, say not. Remove the confusing mishmash that is the “equal protection” and “due process” clauses.
We’ve done this several times before. BTW, figuring out what we each individually want in the costitution is the easy part. Convincing everyone else to agree is where it gets messy. The constitution is a compromise between competing philosophies, and unless we’re going to have a new one handed down from on high, it’s going to remain that way.
Probably incorporate the ammendments directly into the text after a review and perhaps referendum votes by the people on the issues. The incorporated text would be clear and unambiguous and there would be copious notes on the intent of the new clauses so future generations wouldn’t have to guess as to what the hell we meant or what our REAL intent was. For instance the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would have a referendum vote by the people and if the vote came down that private US citizens would have this right it would be clearly stated in the text as a guarenteed right. If the vote came down against then that would be clearly stated in the text. Same goes for each of the other rights listed, even Freedom of Speech…referendum vote then clear unambiguous text that any American can understand with copious notes detailing the thoughts behind the rights.
I disagree here. I believe that people in different geographic parts of the country have valid, legitimate concerns that may apply to them, and deserve to have their voice heard in Congress. Not every issue that Congress debates is national in scope (some have a limited, local focus) and people who live in that area deserve to have their voices heard in Congress.
First, I would clarify that the Exceptions clause is purely a procedural device and is not to be used in an attempt to limit the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction in response to substantive decisions.
I’d give the President a specific line-item veto power, mandate sunset provisions (not to exceed 10 years) for ALL federal laws, cap Congressional salaries at some ridiculously low amount, clarify the 2nd Amendment to specifically state that the people as individuals have the right to have as many freaking guns as they want, with a Federal CCW license as part of it, superceding all state laws on the matter, specifically tighten the eminent domain principle to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision, and fiure out some way of encouraging third parties without damaging the protections built in for smaller states. The Electoral College must stay, for the same reason.
Then I would throw my total support behind Free Taco Tuesday!
True. Actually, I think there should be some way to have a compromise between the two.
If the Computer Nerd party has 20% of the population in each of 20 large cities, but never has 50% in any single district, its members deserve some amount of proportional representatin. At the same time, as you point out, there are certainly times when regions are relevant.
I would clear up what the senate’s power to advise and consent about judicial and executive branch appointments means. Judicial candidates with long term appointments could be rejected by the senate for any reason, including political ones, while executive branch appointments could only be rejected only if the nominee failed to pay his/her nanny taxes, or had his/her lover on the payroll, or similar malfeasance.
Judges would be appointed for twenty five year terms, not for life. That’s plenty of time.
I would ammend the Constitution to make it a Federal Crime, punishable by life time solitary confinement, to even attempt to mix religion with government or education.
I do NOT wish to derail this into a gun debate. So please don’t start one.
That being said…
I would clear up language of the Second Amendment.
I think they made a mistake by allowing the amendment to reference a piece of technology. Imagine if the third amendment had been more specific like: “No person shall be forced to quarter soldiers in the loft of his barn” or somesuch. Today we’d be arguing over whether the framers meant garages as well. I think the Second Amendment should be a more general statement regarding the level of destructive power any individual should be allowed (have the right) to wield.
(I have my own opinions about what the framers meant with the 2nd. The content of those opinions is fodder for another thread. I just wish their intent was absolutely clear and unambiguous).
I’d change the US Constitution by having it cede Hawaii to me as my fiefdom in exchange for annual tribute of 10% of sugarcane and pineapple production.
