I think Electoral College reform is in order. I like how some states do it with divvying the votes by congressional district with the state winner getting the two remaining votes. But that is a state matter, not a federal matter. Unfortunately Texas, California, New York, et al would never go for it, as it would diminish their prestige in the General Election.
I really do not like the “Winner Take All” system.
Isn’t that the way things sit right now? The Second Amendment hasn’t been incorporated, and so does no apply to the states. The fights we’ve seen about banning certain types of firearms are due to legislation passed by Congress, not the states. Am I wrong about that?
Nope. Classical liberalism.
I think you’re right but it needs to be made more explicit. If the right to personal protection and hunting were specifically stated, then perhaps the gun rights advocates wouldn’t be quite so nervous about losing their guns. This would neutralize the NRA as an influence in the US Congress and put things in the hands of the states.
Be careful what you wish for. If this amendment were made explicit (instead of implicit, as it is now), there might be enough votes to pass an amendment overturning your amendment and therefore explicitly incorporating the 2nd amendment. People generally like amedmnets that limit the power of government, not ones that strengthen it.
My amendment would state that all candidates for public office would not be allowed to solicit donations from any entity, corporate, or private, to fund their campaign. All campaigns would be paid for through public funds, with every candidate recieving equal amounts of funding. (I.E the candidates for president would all recieve X amount to run their commercials, buy their signs, etc., but the rest of their campaigning would have to be done the Old Fashioned Way, through publicized debates, meeting the public, etc.) Each potential candidate would need to collect a certain number of signiatures to be given the public funding (which would be on a sliding scale appropriate to the importance of the position.)
Thanks for the reference. From that manifesto:
While I don’t necessarily agree with that (I would certainly take exception to “violent”, and probably “attack”, as well), it does appear to be a fairly reasonable basis for a constitution. However, your “draft” seems to eliminate the state altogether; it provides no mechanism for the state to implement even this minimum standard of protection. Was that your intention?
It seems to me that it requires implementation. It says, after all, that government guarantees this freedom from coercion. No Congress is needed for that; only an executive and arbitration.
Presidential Elections
Throw out the electoral college. All states’ primaries must be held on the same day. No negative ads may be shown anywhere unless they are proven to be true.
War
No more presidential wars. No troops committed without a congressional declaration of war.
Health
The health and well-being of citizens and legal residents shall be the business of the federal government. Patients may bypass the system at their own expense.
I would have thought that you’d still need a legislature of some description, to lay down appropriate statutes for the arbitrators to judge cases against. To take an obvious example, a line would need to be drawn between murder and justifiable homicide, and injustice would be (IMO) too much of a risk if it were free for each individual tribunal to draw the line in a different place.
(Should we take this back to GD under a more appropriate subject?)
Neither Congress nor any state shall make or enforce any law prohibiting consensual transactions among adult citizens.
The right to bear arms? Bah.
Make it a requirement.
Gah, you mean this moved too? Anway, arbitration need only interpret the law. Homicide in defense of one’s life, for example, is not initial force.
I think it would be prudent to specify how exactly the government would be set up. You assume arbitration and an executive, but I see nothing in your constitution that would led me to believe that would be the case. In addition, your first amendment on its face is impossible. The government is nothing but a collection of humans, and is no position to guaratee anything.
I think Steve MB’s suggestion about a sunset amendment is an excellent one, so I will go ahead and steal that.
Number two would be: “The right to choose medical treatment under the supervision of a qualified practioner shall not be infringed”
Number three would be: “The right to ingest any chemical, drug, or other substance outside of public areas shall not be infringed.”
The whah?..
Is this thread about writing a Constitution or amending one? There are already executive and judicial branches assigned. I’m elimnating only the legislative one — because it isn’t needed. Ockham’s Razor, and all that. Besides, what’s so great about your ideas? What in your Constitution protects doctors from being enslaved to fulfill your Number Two? What is to protect children from parents who spend all their money on crack, thus satisfying your Number Three? Let’s not be disingenuous here. Apply the same standards to your own work that you do to mine.
I hate to break it to you, but you rendered all laws prior to your amendments null and void. The laws setting up the judiciary and executive are no longer in force.
Whats with the snark?
Anyways, the only standard I believe I have applied here is that guaranteeing something is impossible, and I don’t think I’ve guaranteed anything in my amendments.
I’d only propose one amendment: the President must appear not less than, say, three times annually before a joint session of Congress to take questions from the directly elected representatives of the people.
Yes, I think the Constitution works remarkably well, and I don’t think it needs much tinkering with.
As you almost always do, you make a lot of sense. I’m just saying that there is no amendment that is subject to such polar opposite interpretation as the second, and if we could somehow rewrite it to reassure the hunters that nobody is going to take their guns away while at the same time reassuring urbanites that there is explicit power in the states to limit the firepower, then we’d all be better off. If we could get the social issues like abortion and gun control settled and off the table, we would start to elect representatives that could do something positive on other issues.
It was laws and amendments. The Constitution is not statutory.
I don’t know. I suppose you couldn’t help yourself.
Then what good are they? If government can’t deliver on its legal obligations, it should suffer the consequences just like anyone else who disobeys the law.