Imagine, if you would, a grass-roots effort leading (improbably enough) to a new constitutional convention. Let’s further stipulate that the terms are similar to those in force in 1787: each state gets a single vote, and a three-quarters majority is required for the new constitution to go into effect. Every current state sends delegates, and Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia hire enough hookers with hidden video cameras during the planning stages so that they are considered states for this discussion. Thus it takes thirty-nine votes to pass anything–or, looked at differently, any fourteen states, acting as a block, can veto anything.
What provisions of the current constitution get tossed? What gets added? I am asking those questions in at least two senses: I want to know what you think the likely result of the process would be, and also what you think that result SHOULD be.
I think probably nothing gets done, 14 votes are too easy to get for any issue today. What should get done…Hmmm. Off the top of my head, remove the preamble to the 2nd amendment, repeal the 16th, the 17th and at least section 1 of the 14th (the 14th does a lot, I’ll have to reread it before I can comment on the other sections). that would be a great start.
They need to really tighten down the Executive Branches power to run roughshod over Congress. The Presidential powers just keep enlarging.
I would like to see the electoral college down away with. Wyoming voters should bot be worth 7 New York votes in the Presidential election. That is where there minimum of two Congressmen and the two Senators come into play to keep things balanced.
Better clarify that damn Right to Bear Arms phrase in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
What the hell is wrong with section I of the 14th? Is this concern about illegals giving birth here?
I note the 16th boils down to allowing Income tax.
It seems fine, just clean up the way we collect taxes instead.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
which I’d support to, though the amendment might not pass muster in that form. I’m tired of the ambiguity, though.
What problem do you have with section 1 of the Fourteenth. To spare people the trouble of googling, it reads thusly:
*Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. *
The Sixteenth is about the Income Tax, which makes your objections pretty clear. The Seventeenth allows for direct election of senators; are you proposing a unicameral legislature, a return to Senators being chosen by state legislatures,or something else entirely?
Okay, since it’s me talking, I’ll change “guns” to “array of satellite mounted particle cannons,” and "cold dead hands"to “army of winged howler monkeys.” I’m too pretty to die.
Yep. Remove the amendment, and put it in there in nice bold underlined words.
Private Ownership of firearms for those legally able shall not be infringed by anyone.
Then the states can wrangle over restrictions for criminals, and leave the peaceable law-abiding gun owners to their harmless hobby.
Also, your efforts to negate validity of Wyoming, DC, Vermont, Alaska, South Dakota… etc. by removing the electoral college reeks of elitism.
Why isn’t the entire state of Wyoming worth 7 EC votes of NY?
Section 1 of the 14th would be fine with the phrase “to citizens or legal residents of the United States” added after the second comma.
As for the 17th, I would return Senators to being appointed by state legislatures. Popular election of Senators has thrown the system very far out of whack. The Senate was supposed to look out for the interests of the states and the HoR to look out for the people. Now both answer to the people and both shovel pork like there is no tomorrow to get reelected. One good example of the result of this is the surge in unfunded mandates: If Senators were still there to represent the interests of the states things like NCLB would never get passed.
All of my changes are designed to curtail the power and size of the federal government, something that is desperately needed to prevent the U.S. from going the way of the Romans. If I have time tonight I’ll think about others, that was just a quick and dirty post. Obviously, the 16th would have to be replaced, but I’d like an amendment authorizing tax that strictly limits the total amount of tax that the government can levy.
I’ll also toss in a vote for “Nothing would get done, but here are some things I think should be done …”
(1) Change the way the Constitution is amended. I realize this goes against the stipulations in the OP, but this asinine “3/4 of the states” rule would be first to go. The bottom 38 states in population can pass an Amendment without a population majority, and the top 38 states in population can’t guarantee passage with a 94% population majority. I’d favor a 3/4 population vote (which was simply not technically feasible in 1787), or, if rural people really whine about it, 3/4 of the electoral vote with the modifications to the EC in part 2.
(2) Eliminate or change the electoral college. There’s no reason why we can’t have fractional electoral votes, and voter turnout would be higher without winner-take-all systems. Electoral votes should be allocated in proportion to the popular vote; thus, Wyomingans can still vote 6 times as strongly as a Californians, but at least Californian Republicans and Wyomingan Democrats have a voice.
(3) Clarify all the ambiguous-but-defined portions of the Constitution - “advice and consent of the Senate” for judicial nominees and war powers for the President. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech can be clarified as well.
(4) Replace the 2nd Amendment with a more practical guideline. It’s a little glib, but either we wrestle it out and formalize it in writing, or we wrestle for the next 200 years waffling back and forth. Do ray guns count as guns? What happens when the amount of damage that can be inflicted by a hand-held weapon exceeds some limit?
(5) Write in a balanced budget clause. It can be loose if people are skitterish about making the rules too tight (e.g. exceptions for declared national emergencies or yearly balances can be negative if the 5-year average is balanced) but letting the national debt sit and grow shouldn’t be an option.
Why would that matter? The Supreme Court has been reinterpreting the meaning of that clause for the whole time the country has been around, pretty much. It still applies only to interstate commerce, just the Court believes that any POSSIBLE application to interstate commerce is sufficient, and their not going to get involved in substantive review of such things. Stick around, things will change in the next, oh 25 years or so, they are bound to.
Adding the part about being born to legal residents or citizens negates the situation of “anchor babies” where the child is a citizen even though the mother was an illegal immigrant at the time of the birth. Theoretically it means that there would be less incentive for women to come across the border to give birth. And it means that illegals could be deported without having to worry about their citizen children being left behind.