[Glock Glockler]

Ok, so the chances of another Constitutional convention are about as slim as Clinton taking up a vow of chastity, but if we were to havre one where we could correct the various errors in the document what would we do?

I, for one, would like to see these changes made:

- A rewriting of the 1st Amendment making it clear that the govt is supposed to be neutral as far as religous matters go.

- A rewriting of the 2nd Amendment to make it absolutely clear what it means. Think Boston T. Party's example from his Gun Bible.

- I'd get rid of that interstate commerce clause and simply include a stipulation that the states may not erect trade barriers against one another.

- The General Welfare clause would be gone

- Any decision on taxes would need approval from 3/4 of the Senate

- If the "Necessary and Proper" clause is to be used, 3/4 of the Senate must approve.

- Limit the President to one 6yr term

- Congress will only be paid $100/yr with absolutley no retirement benefits.

- Amendments 17, 16, and 14 would be gone.

So C'mon, I know you've all been fantasizing about changing the Constitution, what would you like to see done?

[Henry Bowman]

I don't want a Constitutional Convention. Too much risk of total FUBAR.

Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have today. Let's just click on the "refresh" button for the SCOTUS, then see what happens.

[Cosmoline]

No 14th?! I'd fight you on that one.

[jsalcedo]

I think you have some good ideas Glock but I would have to disagree with one.

The 100 per year for congress critters would only mean only the rich could afford to be reps and senators.

A viable wage of $50k and removing the clause for self raises tacked on
to unrelated bills would be more reasonable.

An example of this:

The Mayor of San Antonio only gets paid $4800 per year. So all we get are crooked business men who use the office to enrich themselves further
or independently wealthy know nothings who think they know whats best for the little people.

[Skunkabilly]

I don't want a Constitutional Convention. Too much risk of total FUBAR.

No kidding. Sugar-free soda and bandages with happy faces will become rights, and free speech and arms will only be available for the wealthy and privileged.

[No4Mk1]

I'd go for just enforcing the darn thing the way it is currently written! :banghead:

However, if I had a chance to add a single item it would be term limits for all congresscritters.

[tyme]

I think that congress ought to be tri-cameral, and should require 60% for bill passage and 75% for veto override. In addition, all legislation since 1900 should be invalidated unless re-passed, which would result in a radically simplified federal legal structure. I'm not sure how to pick the third chamber... maybe a life-term council of elders or something, picked by something like 1/3 retired intelligence community, 1/3 retired legislators, and 1/3 retired private sector ex-CEOs (the objective being balanced constituency, which I'm not sure that is, but that would be the goal). Minimum age: 65. Conflict of interest abstention would be required on legislation, of course. I can't find any legislatures that are tricameral as listed in the cia factbook, but South Africa was under its 1984 constitution, even though it was for the wrong reason (representation of blacks/whites/asians).

Names and parties of candidates in federal elections should never appear on voting ballots. You can only possibly ever be voting for 3 candidates. If you can't identify the person you want in each of those three offices, you have no business voting on that position. This would require major reworking of electronic voting (and conversion to electronic voting in places that don't have it) so that spelling could be corrected before people vote for an imaginary (misspelled) candidate.

Article I ought to be completely reworked to clearly identify Congress' purview.

I'm not sure a president is necessary anymore, to be honest. With modern communication and authentication protocols, you could easily have an arrangement like -- m-of-n senators + m-of-n reps + m-of-n state legisatures -- for approval of treaties, etc. This is not 1776, where a single representative had to go to another country in person to execute an agreement. Eliminating the president and having the cabinet members make deicisions for their own departments might lead to more gridlock, but that can be a good thing. What does the president do that doesn't waste a bunch of money? Bush isn't exactly a rocket scientist. Everyone knows the government is run by his cabinet and, to some degree, whatever part of his deluded brain thinks that it's a direct conduit carrying messages from God.(1)

I agree that term length and multi-term limits need to be reworked. Nelson Polsby's "Institutionalization of the House of Representatives" from >30 years ago painted a rather dismal picture of the legislative and judicial branches, and the situation hasn't gotten any better (I've got an text-only html copy of Polsby's essay if anyone wants it).

(1) God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.
-- George W. Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from minutes acquired by Haaretz from cease-fire negotiations between Abbas and faction leaders from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts (circa June, 2003), quoted from Arnon Regular, "'Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas" (Haaretz.com:June 27, 2003), quoted from EvilOz (The Iterative Record)

[Glock Glockler]

Hey Skunk, isn't that what you have in KA right now? It also seems that the rest of the country isn't too far behind, so what's to loose?:)

As far as paying Congress, I can cite the NH state legislature as an example of an unpaid govt body, and we do a pretty decent job of keeping big govt at bay here. The main gist of it would be to keep a citizen legislature in Congress. One would have to really care about the country to give up being paid, or at least subsist on a very meager salary. As far as Congressional pay raises, make a requirement for 3/4 of the state govts to approve before they get an extra dime.

[No4Mk1]

One more thing... how about waiting periods for the passage of legislation, and NICS background checks on all elected officials.....:D

Oh wait, we would probably have a hard time getting a quorum.....

[4v50 Gary]

With today's politicians, no Constitutional Convention. They'd mess it up b/c of their short sighted political agenda. Like Fineswine says, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn in your guns." :(

[MJRW]

I'd nix anything of the 3/5s nature. Make sure slavery is clearly labelled as bad. Provide a clear right to vote. Add a protection to citizens from prosecution and liability from those found guilty of a crime if the harm was done as an attempt to stop the crime or something like that. Broke in some place? Not the owners fault you stepped on a bear trap.

[rock jock]

- A rewriting of the 1st Amendment making it clear that the govt is supposed to be neutral as far as religous matters go.
You need to learn a little history. That was not the intent of the 1st.

[Glock Glockler]

Rock Jock,

I've actually read quite a few interpretations of what various people think the 1st Amendment really means, which in itself is an indication that it's poorly written, but I actually don't care about the other possible interpretations. The whole point of Glockler's Constitutional Convention would be to wipe the slate clean and improve upon what we currently have, so what was in the old Constituion doesn't matter.

And just to address the issue itself; when govt get's involved in religion bad things happen. Everybody has their own interpretation of what their God wants, and they seek to impose it on everybody via govt. Religous matters are best left to the free market via individual choice as opposed to govt coercion. Do you really want me, with my own God complex, to require all bow down and pay tribute me? On second though, this religion/govt thing has potential, as long as I'm the one gets to decide what everybody else does.

[RGO]

The top two things I would want are term limits for all elected officials and require a 2/3 majority to pass any bill (not just 50%+1).

[Boats]

The Eighth Amendment's bar to cruel and unusual punishment has to go. Punishment should be cruel and unusual, especially after soft judges quit allowing legislatures to keep stringing up criminals and stretching their necks until dead after only one trial and one appeal.

"You're an incurable child molester and you want out of prison at the end of your term? The 3" hotbrand "M" awaits your forehead the minute you say 'yes.'"

Maybe I should start the "Eighth Vexes Instant Lashing" (EVIL)." I might be able to tweak some noses in an NPR interview someday advocating for the retun of stocks, pillories, flogging and public execution through the repeal of the Eighth.:evil:

[brookstexas]

In regards to the 1st Amendment do you have a different set of history books than I do? I would think the Treaty of Tripoli, The letter to the Danbury Baptists and the founders own extensive writings make it pretty clear they didn't want to create another England...
BT

[Don Gwinn]

There are two main reasons why a give piece of writing may be deeply misunderstood or widely misinterpreted:

1. It is poorly written and thus unclear.

2. It addresses a topic on which many people have deeply held pre-formed convictions, which clear writing often cannot overcome.

[Chris Rhines]

A few things, off the top of my head:

- Change the word 'speech' to 'communications' in the 1st Amendment.
- Rewrite the 2nd (you all know how...)
- Add in an amendment that acknowledges the absolute right to own, trade in, and dispose of property.
- Specifically forbid any agency of the government from enacting or collecting taxes.
- Add something along the lines of L. Neil Smith's Zeroth Amendment. To wit (changes by YT:)

ARTICLE ZERO
I. Any public official or employee who, knowingly or unknowingly, violates—or participates in the violation of—any provision of United States Constitution, or violates or allows to be violated the Constitutional rights of any individual, shall be summarily executed by any interested party.

II. The violation of an individual's Constitutional rights shall be considered an affirmative defense to the crime of murder of a public official or employee.

III. The word "he" is not to be construed so as to exclude female public officials or employees.

IV. This amendment, upon ratification, shall be inserted in the Constitution just before the First Amendment.

I'd sign that one. :D

- Chris

[Standing Wolf]

We need to fix the Supreme Court, not the Constitution.

[Glock Glockler]

Where are all the anti-Federalists when you need them? This stuff is fine and dandy, but one of the things I was hoping for would be a discussion about changing the entire structure of the Constitution to one that made the federal govt an agent of the States as opposed to the Federal govt being the Big Dawg.

Perhaps a revised Articles of Confederation would be a better approach that a revised Constitution.

Chris, Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age but I don't like the idea of anyone being able to cap any govt official because they percieve their rights are being violated. Govt officials, though slime they may be, still have rights just like you and I. I think that there should be a process for putting them on trial for violating their oath and executing them if found guilty.

[Chipper]

Glock Glockler,

Not too many anti-federalists here. The closest are the libertarian-leaning folks and the paleo-conservatives (pre WF Buckley types). Everyone else seems happy with the constitution with maybe, just maybe, some minor changes.

See ya over at P-E.org!

Chipper

[standingbear]

i would just wish for once that the constitution was left as it was originally written as before this or that clause was added.i also wish people would let it alone and quit reading into it to mean whatever they "think" it means.what part of NO isnt understood?

[Chris Rhines]

Chris, Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age... Aren't you younger than me? ;)

Govt officials, though slime they may be, still have rights just like you and I. Careful there, Glockler. You're right, of course, even government employees have the right to life, liberty, property, etc. However, can a person who violates the rights of others claim rights of his own? You tell me.

I think that there should be a process for putting them on trial for violating their oath and executing them if found guilty. This would be okay, except that you really can't trust the government to police its own. Small conflict of interest, government employees passing judgement on other government employees.

If the judicial/tort system was entirely private, then your suggestion would work fine.

- Chris

[seeker_two]

The Founding Fathers got it right the first time...

We don't need any of our modern-day "representatives" to mess it up...

Re-creating the Constitution might lead to more "civil unrest" than it did the first time around...

Let's just get back to basics (Constitution & BOR only)...

[Glock Glockler]

Actually Chris, I'm a wee bit older than you, but whatever I lack in youth I more than make up for in lack of maturity:)

Yes, one does loose their rights when they infringe on the rights of another, but if a cop stumbles upon a dead body with you in a Satan outfit doing the Cha Cha singing "I am Ev-il Chris-II, I am Ev-il Chris II", you'd better be prepared to mount a little more of a legal defense than "Hey, he's with the govt and was..er..um..infringing on my rights..or something like that..I think"

I figure whenever one would put forth a claim of corruption by the govt, a jury would be selected at random and charges would be brought against appropriate scheisse. I would, of course, have to include some type of legal recourse for those that are falsely charged.

[RON in PA]

IMHO a new constitutional convention is, at the very least, risky and would probably cost us the 2nd amendment. The current generation of politicians is nowhere in the league with the Founding Fathers. Hillary Clinton helping to rewrite the Constitution:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[tyme]

(paraphrase) "A new constitutional convention is risky. We should just return to strict constitutionalism."

Except that we cannot return to strict constitutionalism. Without Amendments, how will we ever get back to a reasonably limited government?

[rock jock]

You think words are going to solve this problem? NO Constitution will ever be written that cannot be interpreted differently than it was intended. You need not look any further than a good contracts lawyer for an example.

[Giant]

There has already been a rewrite of The Constitution, it is The Patriot Act.


Giant

[HBK]

I kind of agree with Standing Wolf, it's the Supreme Court I'm worried about. The Constitution is fine the way it is. It's the morons who "interpret" it that are the problem.

[MoNsTeR]

The spirit behind Amendment 14 is A Good Thing(tm) (ie: equal rights before the law). What's wrong with it is how it's been interpreted. And that, IMHO, is the fundamental problem with any written social charter: room for interpretation. Terms need to be defined, examples need to be provided.

At any rate, the biggest problem with the Constitution is right here:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The interstate commerce clause is what's used to justify every whim of congress that would otherwise be unauthorized. All you have to do is purport that what you intend to regulate/subsidize/ban/whatever affects interstate commerce in some abstract way and bam, there you go.

I would also bump Amendments 9 and 10 up to 3 and 4, respectively.

I would suggest a penalty be prescribed for the violation of a Constitutional Oath. If a congresscritter authors or the president signs a law that they know to be unconstitutional, there should be (severe) consequences.

[Glock Glockler]

On the surface the 14th Amendment seems good, equal rights and all, but what it does is essentially give the Feds the dictate the internal matters of a state, thus further shifting the balance of power to the Feds and creating a national govt. The supposed intention of the Constitution was to create a Federal govt, where the Feds would deal ith the state govts and that's it. What we currently have is a national govt where the states act mostly as lackys to the Feds, carrying out their will, and the central govt acting directly upon the citizenry.

Anyone who's against big govt should be sightly apprehensive about giving the govt that much power. If there is a problem within one of the states, suppose a Florida town bans Satan, it should be handled within that state or ideally within that locality. I find it rather pathetic that some backwater Florida town passes a silly law and people are screaming for Federal intervention, as if it's a national issue. Are the people of that state not capable of handling that issue or do we need Big Brother Fed to tell us what to do?

[Murkes]

Well one thing I would like see is changes to the terms and conditions to server as President and congress. Some previous posts suggest a limit to how much Congress critters make so that not only the rich would serve. I think we might want to use pay and retirement to limit a bigger problem, that of lobbying and payolla. These two things make even poor congressmen rich by the time they leave office.

I would limit Pres and Congress to a single 6 year term. During their active
service, they would be paid 200K a year (adjusted for inflation). At the end
of their service they would perminantly retire and receive 3/4s of this amount. They would be prevented by law from receiving funds/payment/gifts/spiffs from any other source (family members could give gifts up to $1K per year also adjusted for inflation). This includes receiving payment for work, intellectual property or reinbursement for expenses. Pres and congress critters must post their monthly finances on line once a month for anyone to read. Violation for either failing to meet the monthly deadline or accepting outside funds would be considered a capital crime. The same restriction would be inforce for a husband or wife to prevent issues like Dashle and his lobbyist wife.

Upon entering office, they must immediately sign away all personal funds above $500K in total assest (this would include private residence). In this one time transfer, they would be allowed to transfer a percentage of their personal wealth to children tax free to allow the children to have funds for college available. Husbands/Wives could not receive anything. Funds could be given to charity or donated to the government.

Basically we would have elected officials serve the people and not their own wealth. They could not use office to create wealth for themselves nor have the oportunity to have someone take care of them after leaving office.

The other thing I would do is change the description of Treason to include the voting for, passage, enforcement or judicial support of any law which violates the freedoms as outlined in the bill of rights and which has not successfully gone through (or is part of) the constutitional amendment process.

Do I think this will ever happen, well I am not that nuts.

Good Cheer,

[deanf]

- The General Welfare clause would be gone

If you're referring to the ". . . promote the general Welfare . . ." phrase in the preamble, don't worry about it. The preamble is non-binding.

If you're referring to Article I, Section 8, what is your quarrel with that clause?

[Tamara]

Not having signed the Constitution, I don't get too caught up in the fine print (except to occasionally demonstrate to some interperative-minded statist just how danged little fine print there is in the ol' document.)

As far as a blueprint for a nation, it's about as good as one will find, provided one just has to have folks to tell one what to do. ;)

[Harold Mayo]

Hillary Clinton helping to rewrite the Constitution


:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[Glock Glockler]

Tamara,

Would you sign a contract without reading the fine print? The fine print just might be the most important part of the Constitution, with the Devil being in the details. As for an interpretive minded statist, is the document really that well written if it can so easily be interpreted to endorse statism? Perhaps it was brilliantly written because of that very reason, but it all depends on your point of view.

Civic Belief #1 Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from Federal Tryanny.

Civic Belief #2 The Federal Govt has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.

If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?

[twoblink]

If we required fingerprinting, background checks, 10 day waiting periods, and a limit on high-capacity voting, that should be a great start :D

How about we ask congress to take a vacation for... oh... 20 years?

Here's a brilliant thought.. How about we follow the Constitution the way it was written??

[Glock Glockler]

If you're referring to Article I, Section 8, what is your quarrel with that clause? (General Welfare)

The problem I have with that is it's vague and ambigous, which leaves room open for interpretation by Statist minded judges.

It has been that, along with the interstate commerce clause, along wth the necessary and proper clause that has left the door unlocked for the Feds.

Ask yourself, what couldn't be justified by "general welfare", "necessary and proper", and the slightest connection to "interstate commerce"?

[Tamara]

Would you sign a contract without reading the fine print?

The reason I "don't get too caught up in the fine print" of this particular contract is that I didn't sign it in the first place. How am I to be held liable for what someone 216 years in the past (who isn't even related to me) agreed to? ;)

[bjengs]

The reason I "don't get too caught up in the fine print" of this particular contract is that I didn't sign it in the first place. How am I to be held liable for what someone 216 years in the past (who isn't even related to me) agreed to? ZZZzzzzing!

[Glock Glockler]

Tamara,

While I sympathize with your position and agree with it to a large extent, the reality is that the fine print of the Constitution is extremely interestd in you, regardless of whether or not you're interested in it. I think it makes sense to truely understand the actual nature of the Constitution, as opposed to what we've been led to believe about it, if we're to have any chance of correcting it.

As for the fine print, let's take a look at the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And compared it to second bit in the articles of Confederation

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Notice that little difference? Why, pray tell, did the Founding Fathers, 34 of the 55 being lawyers, omit that simple word when crafting the new Constitution?

8th Amendment - "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Can anyone tell me how much 'excessive' is? Actually, it doesn't matter what any of us think is excessive, we don't decide that, do we?

6th Amendment - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"

Speedy? By whose definition?

5th Amendment - "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Who decides what "just" is, the Feds?

Another discrepancy I'm curious is between the Constitution's preamble and the Presidential Oath of office.

Preamble - "...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

Oath - "...and defend the Constitution of the United States"

On one hand we have "for this Constitution of the United States of America and then we have "the Constitution of the United States" but with no "of America" attached.

Anyone have any idea why this is?