US Constitution...DO OVER!!!

[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

 

[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]

Things I would like to change in US Constitution

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

 

[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

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]

Glockler,

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?