NationStates Jolt Archive

I had a dream last night that I was addressing Congress and a thought hit me.

If you could go back and speak to the Founding Fathers and convince them to put three things into the Constitution, what would you have them do?

Me:

1] Absolutely define separation of Church and State, including a part that says Government must stay out of peoples' private lives.
2] Leave the American Indian alone ... they're fine where they are.
3] Government by lottery. Requirements of office are already laid out in the Constitution and it says nothing about "being Presidential" or "being electable" or "being Christian" or whatever. So, I say have the entire Executive and Legislative branches be chosen like jurors are chosen. Random. It may not be pretty, but I bet we'd be a lot more fun of a country.

1. Anyone named Bush cannot be elected to a public office.
2. Anyone that looks like a monkey should be put in a zoo.
3. The word terror cannot be used to promote a political agenda.

1: Ban political parties (I understand that this nearly happened)
2: Everyone must work sundays, and Wednesday shall be the new day of rest.

1)Ban Slavery
2)All persons paying tax in the US and of the age of majority shall be entitled to elect representation regardless of gender, race or creed. One Person, One Vote
3)No Income Tax in time of peace ;)

I had a dream last night that I was addressing Congress and a thought hit me.

If you could go back and speak to the Founding Fathers and convince them to put three things into the Constitution, what would you have them do?

Me:

1] Absolutely define separation of Church and State, including a part that says Government must stay out of peoples' private lives.
2] Leave the American Indian alone ... they're fine where they are.
3] Government by lottery. Requirements of office are already laid out in the Constitution and it says nothing about "being Presidential" or "being electable" or "being Christian" or whatever. So, I say have the entire Executive and Legislative branches be chosen like jurors are chosen. Random. It may not be pretty, but I bet we'd be a lot more fun of a country.

I agree on the first one, but I'd amend the second one to a ban of any discrimination or aggrandizement based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc...which should get quite a few things out of the way at once.
3. People should display a certain knowledge about who they are voting for before they are allowed to vote. No, this will not be impossible like the Jim Crow laws of the old south, but voters must know at least the main platforms of the candidates they are voting for and have a reason for voting for them--"the other one's ugly" and "this one has cool hair" would not be valid reasons, nor would votes cast for those reasons be counted.

I had a dream last night that I was addressing Congress and a thought hit me.

If you could go back and speak to the Founding Fathers and convince them to put three things into the Constitution, what would you have them do?

Me:

1] Absolutely define separation of Church and State, including a part that says Government must stay out of peoples' private lives.
2] Leave the American Indian alone ... they're fine where they are.
3] Government by lottery. Requirements of office are already laid out in the Constitution and it says nothing about "being Presidential" or "being electable" or "being Christian" or whatever. So, I say have the entire Executive and Legislative branches be chosen like jurors are chosen. Random. It may not be pretty, but I bet we'd be a lot more fun of a country.


I agree with most of them

The first one I see problems with

The ideals are right but there are situations (such as law enforcement) where they have to intrude. (domestic abuse and such)

Though the separation of church and state ABSOLUTLY defined would be great

I agree with most of them

The first one I see problems with

The ideals are right but there are situations (such as law enforcement) where they have to intrude. (domestic abuse and such)

Though the separation of church and state ABSOLUTLY defined would be great
I kind of dread weighing in on this, but the Constitution already states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Why is that no longer adequate?

I kind of dread weighing in on this, but the Constitution already states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Why is that no longer adequate?


Right now mostly because it protects religions from the government
Not other people from a religious government.
Doesn’t really provide any protection for religious based laws (legislating morality)

I mean what is the non moral/religious argument for banning things like gay marriages
Or for a less controversial things like old school blue laws.

Basically right now my point is it provides for religions not being persecuted by the government (I know it can be expanded) but I just think it needs a bit less leeway because it has been proved that leaving some people with breathing room in rules is just asking fro trouble

Right now mostly because it protects religions from the government Not other people from a religious government.
Doesn’t really provide any protection for religious based laws (legislating morality)

I mean what is the non moral/religious argument for banning things like gay marriages
Or for a less controversial things like old school blue laws.

Basically right now my point is it provides for religions not being persecuted by the government (I know it can be expanded) but I just think it needs a bit less leeway because it has been proved that leaving some people with breathing room in rules is just asking fro trouble
It specifies that Congress cannot make laws establishing a "religion." Isn't that sufficient?

If laws were passed prohibiting people from voting their religions beliefs, wouldn't that be prohibiting the free exercise of their religion? If a majority of the voting population have an antipathy towards certain practices based on their value system ( whether religion is involved or not ), why should they not be able to vote for those who agree with them, and why should those they elect to represent them not be able to pass laws against such practices?

Let's say, for argument's sake, that a majority of the voting population became Muslim and voted into office those who support their value system. What would constitute an "establishment" of the Muslim religion?

It specifies that Congress cannot make laws establishing a "religion." Isn't that sufficient?

If laws were passed prohibiting people from voting their religions beliefs, wouldn't that be prohibiting the free exercise of their religion? If a majority of the voting population have an antipathy towards certain practices based on their value system ( whether religion is involved or not ), why should they not be able to vote for those who agree with them, and why should those they elect to represent them not be able to pass laws against such practices?

Let's say, for argument's sake, that a majority of the voting population became Muslim and voted into office those who support their value system. What would constitute an "establishment" of the Muslim religion?


No I understand that they will VOTE their feelings on the subject

Saying that a law like that shouldn’t be even able to be proposed, unless it harms peoples health or the wellbeing of something other then a “religious institution” (like marriage)

I mean making a law that says you cant beat someone is way different then making a law that says you can’t marry someone


The second only offends a religious/moral standpoint


Also another reason things need to be defined a bit more … what exactly constitutes moral … and what are the basics that we have to adhere by

I would place in a ban on flag burning and make it so the Supreme Court can not rule in favor of the few rather than the many.

1. Candidates should not express religious beliefs, or at least not base policy on religious ideals.
2. Disbandment of the electoral college, replaced with a single transferrable vote for everybody.
3. Abandon the two party system, allowing for more parties, more representitive of groups of peoples beliefs.

There has to be spending caps on elections;
There needs to be at least four well-defined parties for ppl to vote for that gives clear choice between them;
The well-armed militia is limited to single shot, non-automatic weapons;
If you break more than 1/3 of your election promises, you are immediately dismissed from office;
And no mud-slinging during election time!

There has to be spending caps on elections;
There needs to be at least four well-defined parties for ppl to vote for that gives clear choice between them;
The well-armed militia is limited to single shot, non-automatic weapons;
If you break more than 1/3 of your election promises, you are immediately dismissed from office;
And no mud-slinging during election time!


then they are not a well-armed militia lol

and the election promices ... I like ... we would would be rather short on politicians though lol

Convince them to sail off to Africa and direct a Dutch invasion. :cool:

1. Define life as beginning at conception, allowing abortion only if a pregnancy results from rape or incest, or if technology is developed that can conclusively determine that the fetus is doomed to early death, severe mental retardation, or other medical conditions that prevent a life of reasonable quality.

2. Establish English as the official language of the United States and require any immigrant who wishes to obtain permanent residence in the U.S. to demonstrate proficiency in speaking and understanding English.

3. Allow for gay, interracial, polygamous, and other potentially controversial marriages to be performed by civil authorities, while permitting religions to determine whether or not their clergy shall be allowed to perform such marriages. Define marriage as the contractual familial union of two (or more) consenting adults. Specify that if all spouses in a non-monogamous marriage cluster are aware of each constituent relationship, the marriages shall all be legal. If any deception occurs, however, the person who kept any of his/her marriages a secret from the other partner(s) shall be subject to charges of bigamy.

Your third idea sounds simliar to proposed 'civil partnerships' in the UK, basically all the rights of marriage without the hassle of getting the churches involved.

1. Candidates should not express religious beliefs, or at least not base policy on religious ideals.
2. Disbandment of the electoral college, replaced with a single transferrable vote for everybody.
3. Abandon the two party system, allowing for more parties, more representitive of groups of peoples beliefs.

1. No Problem.
2. Horrible idea. All you're doing is substituting big cities for big states.
3. Political parties are not listed in the Constitution.

Another couple (that they'd look askance at in 1776):
A constitution admendment adopting the metric system as the basis for all measures. That way, at least that Mars probe a few years wouldn't have wiped out.
And ban anyone named Steven Seagal from making movies.

1)Ban Slavery
2)All persons paying tax in the US and of the age of majority shall be entitled to elect representation regardless of gender, race or creed. One Person, One Vote
3)No Income Tax in time of peace ;)

1. Recall the 3/5ths Compromise. It was made because it was necessary to get the South to join the Union, not due to a desire to allow slavery by the Northern States.

2. They do. Just not for President. This was done specifically to allow the states to elect the President.

3. Great idea, but not really practical since the 16th Amendment.

1. ban everything

or

2. ban people from banning anything

or

3. ban any company named microsoft from having 50%+ share of any market

Another couple (that they'd look askance at in 1776):
A constitution admendment adopting the metric system as the basis for all measures. That way, at least that Mars probe a few years wouldn't have wiped out.
And ban anyone named Steven Seagal from making movies.

I assume you're going to show them the future, then?

* Metric system was defined in 1790. You're a couple of generations early.
* What's a movie? :)

1. No Problem.
2. Horrible idea. All you're doing is substituting big cities for big states.
3. Political parties are not listed in the Constitution.

Point of the single vote as it makes the system more accountable to the public, the person who gets the most votes would get elected. I know the parties arent in the constitution but I put it anyway as it would certainly create a more interesting system.

Point of the single vote as it makes the system more accountable to the public, the person who gets the most votes would get elected. I know the parties arent in the constitution but I put it anyway as it would certainly create a more interesting system.

That just makes it more worthwhile to have the dead vote. A recount in one state is bad enough. Imagine a nationwide one? :)

Convince them to sail off to Africa and direct a Dutch invasion. :cool:
what?

1. ban everything
or
2. ban people from banning anything
or
3. ban any company named microsoft from having 50%+ share of any market
Actually I'd prefer a Constitutional Admendment saying that I'm legally entitled to 50% of Microsoft shares. That'd be better.