NationStates Jolt Archive

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

So begins the Declaration of Independence with which the United States broke from the British Empire and began the Revolutionary War. This document would lead to the Articles of Confederation which would then lead to the Constitution.

In the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the first Constitution of the United States, I propose a new Constitution for the United States of America be drawn up, one that will embody democracy, humanity, liberty and freedom, the ideals the United States was founded upon.

I consider those who post here Delegates to this, the Second Constitutional Congress. Contribute to this new Constitution as you will.

Why bother, the left will just wipe thier asses with it like they do the current one, or invent "rights" they claim are in it.

while waiting to see if anyone else is interested in the experiment, we should probably come up with a rough outline of how to proceed. like so we don't go off at random on huge tangents.

We should make the gun thing clearer. That would be good.

Why bother, the left will just wipe thier asses with it like they do the current one, or invent "rights" they claim are in it.

well, that's constructive

i suppose this means we'll write you down as being opposed to any inclusion of a phrase like "the list of rights in this document should not be taken to be a comprehensive list of all of the rights retained by the people" then, yes?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes, that definitely needs improvement. The next Constitution needs to be written in clear, definite English without legalese or 18th century speech. i think I can establish that as a prerequisite.

I think establishing some of the basic framework of the government is the first order of business. Everything can proceed from there.

First, I would propose that the new government remain a democracy. The question becomes how this new Democracy will work. I believe a republic is the most logical form of Democracy to use. However, I do not believe that a two-chambered Legislature is most efficient; instead, I would propose a single-chambered Legislature. Presuming that the States will be kept intact, I would propose that a number of Representatives be sent to the federal Legislature from each state based upon the population of that state.

In other words, the Senate would effectively be dissolved, and the House of Representatives would become the sole Legislative body, though this need not be it's name. I would also propose that the minimum number of representatives from each State be two, that each representative serve for four years per term, and that they be limited to three terms.

Second, I propose that the Executive Branch be stripped of all it's power beside the ability to veto bills submitted by the Legislature and the ability to use military force in the event of a national crisis. The Executive will be elected via a national election based on the popular vote throughout all states and territories. The Executive may be impeached and forced from office via a 2/3rds vote from the Legislature.

Third, I propose that the Judicial Branch of the federal government - the Supreme Court, so to speak - be stripped of it's power to effectively legislate from the bench, as this is antithetical to democratic principles of politics. It's powers shall be narrowly tailored to allow it only to rule in favor of or against the plaintiff; the ruling shall be handed over to Congress, which will be Constitutionally required to uphold the ruling of the Court and legislate accordingly.

That no branch of the nation, as a beacon of freedom and refuge from tyranny, shall enact laws preventing the emigration and immigration to and from the country, excepting cases where the individual or individuals in question are suspected of crimes, or in cases where said individuals have been convicted of serious crimes, or cases where the immigrant comes from a nation who is at war or close to war with the United States, and such cases shall not be discarded out of hand but rather shall be examined on the merits of the applicant.

That the freedom of the peoples shall come before all other considerations, with the sole exception of defending the nation against an aggressor who has the capacity to strike the US homeland. (In essence, conscription shall be prohibited excepting those cases where the very existence of the US not only as the current nation, but as a nation at all, is threatened.) (Secondarily, that the government shall not proscribe any action which does not harm other persons of the nation or wider world.)

That it is the right of any citizen to posses any article he desires, excepting those capable of inflicting mass destruction, and those articles involving the slavery of other persons. The permissable articles include but are not limited to firearms, tobacco, alchohol, drugs, and items of cultural significance.

That without serious and just suspicion, the government and its various branches shall have no right to intercept, infiltrate, tap phones, hack, or otherwise invade private correspondence between citizens.

That private trades shall be monitored as minimally as possible, that taxation shall be minimal and only for the most essential of services, that all persons shall be taxed fairly and by an equal proportion, and that the Congress, President, Vice President, Staff, and other such employees of the People shall be paid the national average wage.

We recognize that the right of Habeus Corpus is inalienable and may be suspended only in cases where revelation of the charges could compromise further arrests - to this end, the right of Habeus Corpus may be suspended for a period not exceeding seven (7) days, and that all such suspensions shall subsequently be reviewed by an appointed panel.

The State shall remain independant of the Churches and Faiths of the Nation. Whilst it is impossible to eliminate personal feelings of morality and belief in the making of decisions, the State shall enforce no legislation compelling nor prohibiting actions of any Church, other than those actions already prohibited in secular laws. The State shall recognize the right of all citizens to free worship, and the declaration of any Church of marriages, between any gender, race, and number of adults of capability of informed consent.

I'll be back later with more! :p Edit: It does make a lot of sense to establish the actual framework of the government first, so these point can be considered pending until such matters are decided.

Yes, that definitely needs improvement. The next Constitution needs to be written in clear, definite English without legalese or 18th century speech. i think I can establish that as a prerequisite.

indeed. legalese is just disempowering to the people and empowering to an elite class.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I prefer this.

Yes, the two chamber legislature is a real hassle, and the supposed class division between House and Senate are a joke anyway. I wholly approve of term limits.

I like the plan for the executive branch. A direct election would really improve the election's transparency.

The plan for the SC is good because it stamps out legislating from the bench.

The government should put strict limits on the national debt (as a percentage of GDP, not dollar value), and make them unliftable without amendment.

The right to bear arms is only one right. I think it's most logical to clearly define the most sacred of our human rights, those protected by the First Amendment of the first Constitution.

How extreme will the protection of Free Speech be? Will you be permitted to say whatever you wish? What about threats of violence or other deeds? What about libel and slander? What about "intolerance" and political correct speech, or rather the lack thereof?

What about the the protection of religion? Shall we clearly outline a seperation of Church and State, and how will the government enforce that?

What about the freedom of the Press? Can the government regulate it? How much access will the Press have to the government and it's activities?

What about the right to "peacably assemble?" In the current Union, the right to assemble is regulated by the government. Should it continue to be regulated by the government, or shall the government no longer force assemblers to acquire permits?

What about the right to petition the government? What requirements must a petitioner meet in order for the government to add the petitioners' grievances to it's list of "things to do"? A number of signatures? A compelling argument? A representative who supports the grievance?

Why bother, the left will just wipe thier asses with it like they do the current one, or invent "rights" they claim are in it.

You'd like Australia. We have no bill of rights, hurrah!

Define Executive power in more concrete terms, specify the extent of the Commerce Clause, and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That'd be a good start. ;)

You'd like Australia. We have no bill of rights, hurrah!

*cheers*

On a more serious note, I think we really need to clarify the Constitution. The old way of writing is too complex when it doesn't need to be, and it shows.

That without serious and just suspicion, the government and its various branches shall have no right to intercept, infiltrate, tap phones, hack, or otherwise invade private correspondence between citizens.Yet, what constitutes a seriousa nd just suspicion? Who determines this? The Legislature? The Court? We have seen throughout American history that the government has been able to justify it's decisions through propaganda and misinformation ever since the Alien and Sedition Acts. I believe a strict framework that can only be changed via a Constitutional Amendment should established what constitutes a just pretense for the invasion of privacy.

That private trades shall be monitored as minimally as possible, that taxation shall be minimal and only for the most essential of services, that all persons shall be taxed fairly and by an equal proportion, and that the Congress, President, Vice President, Staff, and other such employees of the People shall be paid the national average wage.Is this a proposal of a Flat Tax?

In addition, I would propose that the Right of Privacy be clearly outlined as an inalienable right equal to freedom of speech. The framework of this I have yet to decide upon.

You'd like Australia. We have no bill of rights, hurrah!

Really?

How can you preserve your rights without a BoR? I'm interested.

I would propose that the Right of Privacy be clearly outlined as an inalienable right equal to freedom of speech. The framework of this I have yet to decide upon.

I'd like to see this as well. I don't want those motherfuckers in the RIAA sneaking around my hard drive.

A flat tax would be unfair in a capitalist society, since 25% of a person's earnings at 50,000 a year is a much bigger bite out of their standard of living than 25% of 1,000,000. Perhaps some kind of shift to a kind of "asset tax" would be needed for the very wealthy to prevent them from using tax shelters. Tax cuts would only come in times of surplus, and would be revoked as needed when deficits threaten.

i would like to again mention that this is a big undertaking, and we really do need to break it into smaller more manageable chunks. otherwise we are going to jump around and never get anywhere, and possibly get stuck on a tiny number of points that will mainly be distractions.

so let's first focus on the general outline of the thing before getting down to the nitty gritty of certain specific parts.

possible idea of how we should proceed:

1. general outline of style and structure of institutions we want to see
2. break down those institutions into their respective parts and work on them individually, breaking down further as necessary
3. discussion of the concept of rights and whether we should use it or not - and if we do, which to use and how to protect them

It has been asked that the Executive Power be more clearly outlined. I shall proceed to try to contribute to doing just that.

The Executive, which we shall call the President for the sake of convenience, will, as I said, be elected via a national popular vote. He or she will serve a term of six years [so that the executive power will not be voted in along with an entire party if said party swept the Legislature in the last election]. The President will only be permitted to serve one term, but may be elected to the Executive office again after being his/her successor has served one term.

The President must be at least thirty-five years of age as of the time of his entering into office; I believe this age restriction is a wise idea. I think it wise to append to my requirements for Legislature that a representative be at least twenty-five years of age.

The Legislature, upon approving a bill with a majority vote, must submit the bill to the President. The President may then approve or veto the bill. If the bill is veto'd, it is returned to the Legislature. The Legislature may vote to overturn the President's veto and have the bill approved without his/her input with a two-thirds vote from the Legislature.

The President has the power to command the National Guard of an individual state with the express approval of the Executive of said state in order to preserve the peace of the Union. However, the President may not use military force outside of the borders of the United States without a 2/3rds vote by the Legislature to allow him/her to do so; in this vote, the Legislature is required to clearly outline the purpose of this empowerment, what goals it is intended to accomplish; the President is then empowered to use this force for the span of two years, at which point the issue will again come before the Legislature, which may vote to re-empower the President with military power if it meets the requirement of a 2/3rds majority for an additional two years. If the Legislature does so, the President is then empowered to use the National Military in order to accomplish whatever ends the Legislature charges him with. The Legislature retains the right to withdraw the President's military power at any time with a 2/3rds vote.

Hm. What else am I missing?

i would like to again mention that this is a big undertaking, and we really do need to break it into smaller more manageable chunks. otherwise we are going to jump around and never get anywhere, and possibly get stuck on a tiny number of points that will mainly be distractions.

so let's first focus on the general outline of the thing before getting down to the nitty gritty of certain specific parts.

possible idea of how we should proceed:

1. general outline of style and structure of institutions we want to see
2. break down those institutions into their respective parts and work on them individually, breaking down further as necessary
3. discussion of the concept of rights and whether we should use it or not - and if we do, which to use and how to protect themWell, I think I proposed what I wanted. Retain the three-branched system we currently use, only weaken the Executive and Judicial branches and strengthen the Legislative branch. I've begun to move into the second stage. But I agree.

Let's stick to outlining the institutions of our government, the functions they'll serve and how our government as a whole will work.

1. Unicameral Legislature composed based upon population (assuming the states still remain) and elected by universal suffrage at age 18.
Power to tax, appropriate spending, make laws.

2. Weak president with power only to veto, appoint cabinet (with #1's approval), request war, meet with leaders. NO EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Elected to (two maximum) four year terms by direct election.

3. Supreme Court that is appointed and reconfirmed every 6 years by #1, term cap of four. Limit decisions only to case at hand, no bench legislation (not sure how to specifically control)

I'll need more time to decide on a Bill of Rights

Yes, that definitely needs improvement. The next Constitution needs to be written in clear, definite English without legalese or 18th century speech. i think I can establish that as a prerequisite.

Well, I guess I know when I'm not wanted .... :D

Well, I guess I know when I'm not wanted ....

No, we'll need someone to argue our case before the Supreme Court.

I take issue with some of this.

2. Weak president with power only to veto, appoint cabinet (with #1's approval), request war, meet with leaders. NO EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Elected to (two maximum) four year terms by direct election.What purpose will the Cabinent serve in this government? If the President is primarily a figurehead diplomat with veto power, lacking executive orders [which I agree with], then why possess a Cabinent? In addition, I believe a term limit of one term, but simply longer, like six years, is superior. It keeps the executive office fresh and out of complete synchronization with the electoral cycle of the Legislature that I proposed, in which a representative is elected for four years at a time with a limit of three terms.

3. Supreme Court that is appointed and reconfirmed every 6 years by #1, term cap of four. Limit decisions only to case at hand, no bench legislation (not sure how to specifically control)Reconfirmation seems dangerous, as this implies that politics will play an issue with the Court more than it already does. Instead of having to be up-to-date on politics at the time they're nominated, they will have to constantly stay up-to-date on politics for 24 years. It seems to me that the arrangement of lifelong terms and Congressional appointments seems less politically charged.

right, so we lay out competeing general outlines for the moment. then we can all yell at each other about how stupid the other people's conceptions are. we should probably try to do this in an organized manner too - do we want to have somebody to serve as a sort of summarizing secretary position?

process matters!

Really?

How can you preserve your rights without a BoR? I'm interested.

Well, it depends on the high court. Some judges believe that there are "implied" freedoms in the constitution. Others...don't. If the government tries to push a law putting restrictions on freedom of speech, it's up to the court to stop them. Of course, this means that judges are very powerful in influencing laws- a certain conservative judge managed to block the nationalisation of the aircraft industry in the 1940's (which was supported by the large majority of parliament and one would assume the population as a result of that), because he believed that the constitution "implied" that the government couldn't do that. The point of course is not whether that was a good thing, but whether he should have the power to reverse a government decision in order to push his own agenda. There have been other examples, of course.

I believe we need a bill of rights as soon as possible, but public referenda to introduce one have failed, for some reason deeply rooted in the psyche of the Australian people. (I have names for that reason, but I probably shouldn't call fellow citizens stupid. Oh, too late :p).

Fortunately, we do have a democratic tradition. I don't think most people would stand for the government telling us that we can't criticize it any more.

Fortunately, we do have a democratic tradition. I don't think most people would stand for the government telling us that we can't criticize it any more.

That's good. However, over here in America, the government is really getting pissy about that issue. The current administration, anyway.

The cabinet would serve as both the heads of government agencies and as advisor to the president, who could use their advice to make requests before the House of Reps. and alert them to the status of the departments, but would have no real power.

The one term limit would reduce the amount of BS promises made by politicians, since they do not need to pander for reelection, and encourage a faster House, since the president would be a kind of showpiece for each party's platforms.

It would probably be best to have the old system, but some kind of age cap should be put in place, mostly because judges confirmed 30-40 years ago are probably not as well adjusted to the political climate of today.

That's good. However, over here in America, the government is really getting pissy about that issue. The current administration, anyway.

Oh, believe me, so is ours. But I think the people are stronger than it. :)

right, so we lay out competeing general outlines for the moment. then we can all yell at each other about how stupid the other people's conceptions are. we should probably try to do this in an organized manner too - do we want to have somebody to serve as a sort of summarizing secretary position?

process matters!That sounds like a plan, although this doesn't need to be quite so strict. :)

I'll keep an eye on whole, intact outlines in this thread, and post them as a whole when it seems that the first stage is finished.

Well, I guess I know when I'm not wanted .... :D

haha. you can stay - we'll just need a translator

Oh, believe me, so is ours. But I think the people are stronger than it. :)

Good. It's always best to show the government who's boss.

That sounds like a plan, although this doesn't need to be quite so strict. :)

I'll keep an eye on whole, intact outlines in this thread, and post them as a whole when it seems that the first stage is finished.

yeah, nothing too strict. but i've watched groups explode while trying to do shit like this because they spent too long talking without making steps in any particular direction. its just a matter of the balancing act between focus and not getting stuck.

Yet, what constitutes a seriousa nd just suspicion? Who determines this? The Legislature? The Court? We have seen throughout American history that the government has been able to justify it's decisions through propaganda and misinformation ever since the Alien and Sedition Acts. I believe a strict framework that can only be changed via a Constitutional Amendment should established what constitutes a just pretense for the invasion of privacy.

Is this a proposal of a Flat Tax?

In addition, I would propose that the Right of Privacy be clearly outlined as an inalienable right equal to freedom of speech. The framework of this I have yet to decide upon.

I would propose serious and just suspicion constitutes a case where other evidence has already been amassed, and where the interception of communications is further to the already existing evidence, rather than evidence on its own or to be used as a starting point. Thus I would propose my former statement be reworded to adequately reflect this.

I would advocate a flat-tax proposal, but with the possibility for a reduction in the amount paid dependant on number of income earners in the house, number of persons in the house, and other similar factors.

Edit: As I am largely unfamiliar with the current workings of the US government, I can't contribute a great deal to that particular discussion. However, I would voice my support for the proposal of a single-term six year executive. With regards to the Supreme Court, I would suggest that not only do they serve for an extensive time period, but also that they do not take the position immediately upon appointment, but rather it is delayed for a few years (Excepting cases where a gap needs to be filled, of course.); I believe this would reduce political grandstanding, as they would find it harder to be appointed on current affairs.

Am I the only one who's ever seen C-SPAN? Does it honestly make sense to expand the power fo the legislative branch?

Conscription only to protect the Union? How do we decide what protects the Union? Did the Afghan War protect the Union? WWI? Did Pearl Harbor have to happen for conscription to be acceptable?

How about limiting the power of the federal government and reserving rights to the state?

How about the state recognizing civil unions between only two adults for the purposes of communal property, benefits and keeping families together (when in government service, in the case of moving, for example)? As George W. and many others have pointed out that marriages are a religious institution (many religions, in fact), let marriages be defined by other organizations and civil unions be defined by the government.

Am I the only one who's ever seen C-SPAN? Does it honestly make sense to expand the power fo the legislative branch?

Conscription only to protect the Union? How do we decide what protects the Union? Did the Afghan War protect the Union? WWI? Did Pearl Harbor have to happen for conscription to be acceptable?

How about limiting the power of the federal government and reserving rights to the state?

How about the state recognizing civil unions between only two adults for the purposes of communal property, benefits and keeping families together (when in government service, in the case of moving, for example)? As George W. and many others have pointed out that marriages are a religious institution (many religions, in fact), let marriages be defined by other organizations and civil unions be defined by the government.

Never seen - or even heard of - C-SPAN.

Conscription, as I suggested, only to protect the union. None of those cases were ones where conscrition would be acceptable - conscription should be used only when the homeland is directly threatened (IE there's an invasion force).

Marriages should be defined by religions, indeed, but if we actually permit religion to define marriage, and not the State, then I'm quite sure we will soon see numerous branches of faith who will marry gays and so forth. Civil Unions should be available in place of marriage - for those people who desire the legal rights marriage offers but reject the institution - but it should not be the required alternative for people who are alternative.

Never seen - or even heard of - C-SPAN.

Conscription, as I suggested, only to protect the union. None of those cases were ones where conscrition would be acceptable - conscription should be used only when the homeland is directly threatened (IE there's an invasion force).

Marriages should be defined by religions, indeed, but if we actually permit religion to define marriage, and not the State, then I'm quite sure we will soon see numerous branches of faith who will marry gays and so forth. Civil Unions should be available in place of marriage - for those people who desire the legal rights marriage offers but reject the institution - but it should not be the required alternative for people who are alternative.

Civil Unions should be required by all people who desire the legal rights marriage currently provides whether they reject marriage or not. You should have to apply for and disolve civil unions through the state and Marriage should be reserved to branches of faith.

So would an invasion force be a group of individuals who takeover a bunch of civilian modes of transportation to destroy them and other civilian targets?

I take you endorse the mistake we nearly made in WWII where by taking an isolationist attitude we were nearly too late.

So, in the spirit of Free Soviet's suggestion, I'll place here a working outline of how I believe the government of the United States OUGHT to be structered. This will not be concerned with specifics.

Trammwerkian Democratic Republicanism

The Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, hereby referred to as the Congress, shall be empowered to write and submit laws to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government for approval. Each member of Congress, hereby referred to as a Representative, shall be elected to Congress by the popular vote of the state he or she represents to a term of four years. Each Representative may serve no more than three total terms as a Representative in Congress and must have lived in the state which he or she represents for a minimum of ten years by the time of taking office in order to qualify for that office. A Representative must also be at least twenty-five years of age by the time of taking office in order to qualify to take office. A minimum of two representatives will be alloted to each State. If a state possesses 1,000,000 or more United States citizens, it will be alloted one Representative for every 500,000 United States citizens resident in that state.

The Prime Minister will be charged with keeping order in the proceedings of the Congress. He or she will be appointed by the President at the time of the President taking office and will leave office at the time that the President leaves office. Each Representative may submit legislation to the Congress; legislation is ratified by Congress by way of a majority vote. When legislation is ratified, it is submitted to the President to be vetoed or approved. If the legislation is vetoed, Congress may hold a vote in order to overturn the President's veto. If a 2/3rds majority is met, the President's veto is null and void and the legislation becomes federal law.

In the case of a tie, the Prime Minister may make the tie-breaking vote.

The Congress retains the right to levy taxes on all international and interstate imports and exports. The Congress retains the right to raise and train an army. The Congress retains the right to make laws necessary and proper to the welfare of it's citizenry. The Congress may not make laws that violate the laws of the Constitution.

The Congress may impeach the President with a 2/3rds vote. The Supreme Court is charged with presiding over the impeachment.

The Congress may amend the Constitution with a 2/3rds majority vote.

The Executive Branch
The Executive Branch will hereby be referred to as the Presidency. The President will be elected to office via a national election using the popular vote. He or she must be at least thirty-five years of age upon taking office. The President is elected to a term of six years, afterwhich he or she may not run for a consecutive term. The President must be a native to the United States of America.

The President is endowed with the ability to veto any legislation submitted to him or her by Congress. Legislation submitted to the President by Congress, if not veto'd, must either be signed and made into federal law or re-submitted to Congress for further debate.

The President is endowed with the ability to nominate judges for consideration by the Congress to be placed on the federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court.

The President is endowed with the ability to appoint the Prime Minister of Congress.

In the event of a national crisis, the President is endowed with the ability to use the militia of a State with the express permission of the Executive of that State in order to deal with said crisis, so long as that crisis is within the borders of the United States or it's territories. The Congress retains the right to veto the President's exercise of this power with a majority vote.

The President may submit to Congress a request for military action. This request must contain a clear outline of the goals of this military action as well as why it must be taken. If the Congress approves this request with a 3/4ths vote, the President is endowed with the ability to use the national military in any way he sees fit outside the borders of the United States of America, unless otherwise noted by the Congress in it's approval of military action. This exercise of military power ends within a span of one year, at which point the President must resubmit a request for military action for Congress to vote upon, or else be stripped of his military power.

The President may meet with foreign powers and sign treaties, but Congress must ratify those treaties in order form them to take effect for the United States.

The President may not submit legislation to Congress.

The Judicial Branch
Judges shall be nominated by the President and confirmed or denied their seats by a majority vote by Congress. Judges shall be appointed on a lifetime basis, or until they choose to retire, at which point the President may nominate a new judge to fill the empty seat.

All cases affecting or dealing with the Constitution of the United States and it's relation to the government and it's legislation shall be brought before the Supreme Court, which may choose to deny or hear a case by it's own will. The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution, in it's strictest form, as it pertains to the case at hand. If the Court finds in favor of the plaintiff, the ruling is submitted to Congress, which must then legislate based on this ruling within a span of two years.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Am I the only one who's ever seen C-SPAN? Does it honestly make sense to expand the power fo the legislative branch?

How about limiting the power of the federal government and reserving rights to the state? Please, feel free to draw up a more confederate approach to the government. It would contribute to this generally pro-federal [thusfar] argument.

right, so we lay out competeing general outlines for the moment. then we can all yell at each other about how stupid the other people's conceptions are.

i'd like to propose something a little different from what has been proposed before.

so far, people have been assuming most power should lie in the hands of federal level institutions. i'm not so sure this is necessarily the wisest road. on democratic principles i think that the power hierarchy should be kept as flat as possible. so i'd like to propose a radical break with at least some parts of the old, and call for more restricted 'top' levels and an increase in the scope of local and bio/social-regional control.

*more detail to follow*

Civil Unions should be required by all people who desire the legal rights marriage currently provides whether they reject marriage or not. You should have to apply for and disolve civil unions through the state and Marriage should be reserved to branches of faith.

So would an invasion force be a group of individuals who takeover a bunch of civilian modes of transportation to destroy them and other civilian targets?

I take you endorse the mistake we nearly made in WWII where by taking an isolationist attitude we were nearly too late.

Actually, that's a sensible idea, and I support it entirely. Sorry if you were trying to get that through to me before and I missed it.

No, that would not be an invasion force. An invasion force would be one with the intentions of occupation or genocide, not a single act of terrorism. If terrorist acts were happening on a regular basis, then yes, that would be acceptable in my eyes.

I don't have a problem with isolationism. I don't have any problems with the fact that the US wanted to stay well out of the war - Britain and France did the same thing with the whole appeasement thing - but WW2 is the most recent event where a case for the draft could be made. And even so, it would have had to have waited until the Japanese were back on the offensive and likely to strike the US itself.

1. Unicameral Legislature composed based upon population (assuming the states still remain) and elected by universal suffrage at age 18.
Power to tax, appropriate spending, make laws.

Hell no. That fucks over all the states that don't have as many people. You need a bicameral legislature like the current one to prevent tyranny of the majority.

continuing with what i was saying before, i think we need to start from the beginning. already people have begun making comments about how something is unfair to certain types of states (typically low population ones). but what is a state anyway, other than a remnant of our colonial past? why are we so wedded to this idea?

states are a largely arbitrary set of boundaries, that do not necessarily reflect the social facts in a region. take, for example, the chicago urban cluster. it forms a continuous mass of population across two states. within a short time it will almost certainly fill in the remaining gaps and go all the way up to milwaukee too. why should the seat of power (above the various city governments) rest in three different states for this one continuous population center? all that that acomplishes is making cooperation between the various parts of the urbanized area harder than necessary as the number of bureaucratic hurdles to jump through are needlessly multiplied. and, of course, a similar situation holds for contiguous less-urbanized or rural regions that fall in different states - think of almost any straightline border. the problems caused by arbitrarily focusing political power on states are not necessarily too great; the state and local governments have had to come up with ways to make it this far after all. but they are unnecessary, and are directly caused by an outdated and static way of conceptualizing social and political space. why not start fresh and map out a system that reflects modern social facts, rather than the land grants of the king of england and the imaginary lines drawn up to maintain the balance of slave and free states?

of course, these modern social facts themselves will not remain static either, and we should not construct a system that pretends they will. as such, i propose that we set the local political bodies - perhaps neighborhood assemblies and town and city councils - as the basic unit of politics above the individual. let them decide for themselves how to associate with the political bodies around them. the states as we know them will no longer exist, and in their place we will have various kinds of associations between local populations, as are desired by those people and as conditions dictate.

*and again, more later*

OK, let's see how we can change the Constitution appropriately. I will avoid being political if at all possible and stick to rules and regulations as much as possible. There are some things that are currently in the Constitution that will be clarified as needed.

First off, the number of legislators would be increased, but they would be elected by proportional representation so there's none of this pork-barreling for people's "home state." Also, it breaks the whole two-party stranglehold and actually gives a somewhat representative government. Sure, the largest parties would be fairly moderate, but people would vote for who they wanted in office and not for who they want to win. The legislature would be unicameral, with every member serving a four-year term. Half the legislature is elected at a time, so the number of legislators will be even. Say, for argument's sake, we have 750 of them. 375 are elected in 2006 and the other 375 are elected in 2008. The Vice President casts the tiebreaking vote if need be. Also, legislators can only be re-elected three times for a total of four terms.

The President is elected for terms that last six years and can only be re-elected once, for a total of two terms. The President has the power to veto all bills not passed by at least 60% of the legislature; if vetoed, a legislative bill is dead. The Vice President is elected on the same ticket; Presidential elections take place over several rounds of voting with many candidates on the first ballot. Voting is done in similar fashion to "American Idol" in that voters pick a candidate they want to keep, and those with fewer votes are eliminated. The President is still head of state and commands the military; however, a bit more weight goes to Congress with regard to military action. For example, Congress can order a military pullout for any reason by majority vote, so under this system, if Congress declares Iraq a lost cause, they can order a complete pullout and the President can't do a damn thing about it.

The Supreme Court is not elected or Presidentially-appointed. Instead, any citizen over the age of 18 is allowed to become a member of a council that votes on such matters as who serves on the Court. This council is also important in the amendment process and can be drafted as jurors for federal cases. These are the only people who will serve as jurors in federal cases. They will take an exam similar to the civil service exam and demonstrate both interest and ability to serve in the public sector. The Court will have nine members with one being selected by the committee every year. No Justice may serve more than two full terms.

Legisators can be forced out by popular recall or expelled by a 75% majority of the rest of the legislature. They are also out if they are convicted of a crime while in office, other than a minor traffic violation. Yes, if a Congressperson shoplifts a pack of gum, they lose their office, but for small offenses, they can run next time anyway. If they kill someone, they are barred for life from running again. You get the idea. Presidents, along with Supreme Court justices, can be issued a vote of no confidence and dismissed from office by a 75% majority of the legislature; they can also be recalled (the President by popular recall, the Supreme Court by council recall.)

The Constitutional amendment process would be changed as well. The components are a legislative vote, in which a 60% majority is necessary for passage; the concurrent approval of 75% of all state legislatures; majority vote of the council; popular vote. Passage in any three of these areas constitutes the passage of an amendment to the Constiitution. Only if exactly two out of the first three steps pass will a popular vote be called, as it will be moot otherwise (if none or one pass, a popular vote won't matter; if all three pass, it passes anyway.)

Treaties would be ratified by a 60% majority and signature by the President. If the President vetoes, the council can override the veto by a 60% affirmative vote. Treaties cannot be overturned by the Supreme Court, nor can any part of the Constitution; the Court can overturn any action by the legislature, the President, or the governments of any state. Also, any amendment to a state Constitution is immune from being overturned by the Court.

The First Amendment would be added but clarified and made into five separate statutes. Each one would declare that no governing body can abridge any of the freedoms of the First Amendment, not just Congress.

The Second Amendment will be rewritten, definitely. More likely, it would define the difference between non-firearm weapons, personal firearms, military firearms, and weapons of mass destruction. Non-firearm weapons would be allowed in most public places, and military firearms/weapons of mass destruction would be limited to the military for military use. A provision would disallow them from using such weapons for domestic law enforcement. Personal firearms would be left to the states to legislate, and no federal law could be made to regulate them except in government buildings and such.

The Third Amendment isn't hurting anything, so it can stay, but it can be reworded.

Amendments 4, 5, and 6 stay, of course, but are reworded in a more modern way to be more easily understood.

Amendment 7 is OK, but that part about $20 must be updated. Say, $5,000.

Amendment 8 is clarified to include the death penalty as "cruel and unusual punishment." Get with the times, U.S.

Amendments 9 and 10 can be lumped into one, theoretically, though a right to privacy should be thrown in.

Amendment 11 can stay; Amendment 12 should be clarified earlier in the Constitution.

Amendment 13 goes without saying.

Amendment 14 would be clarified earlier in the Constitution without the pesky "male" and "over 21" rules.

Amendments 15, 16, and 17 are clarified earlier as well, as is everything except for the 23rd. DC becomes a state.

If pro is the opposite of con then is prostitutional progress the opposite of a constitutional congress?

I don't see any overarching need for changes at the Constitutional level at all. 90% of the problems we do have would be solved by passing a single (wholly constitutional) law mandating judicial control over redistricting. If you got rid of the rampant district gerrymandering that goes on in this country, you'd fix just about all the problems that do exist.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

So begins the Declaration of Independence with which the United States broke from the British Empire and began the Revolutionary War. This document would lead to the Articles of Confederation which would then lead to the Constitution.

In the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the first Constitution of the United States, I propose a new Constitution for the United States of America be drawn up, one that will embody democracy, humanity, liberty and freedom, the ideals the United States was founded upon.

I consider those who post here Delegates to this, the Second Constitutional Congress. Contribute to this new Constitution as you will.
I wouldn't touch this with the proverbial ten foot pole! :(

I don't see any overarching need for changes at the Constitutional level at all. 90% of the problems we do have would be solved by passing a single (wholly constitutional) law mandating judicial control over redistricting. If you got rid of the rampant district gerrymandering that goes on in this country, you'd fix just about all the problems that do exist.

thereby politicizing the judiciary more than it already is...

Why bother, the left will just wipe thier asses with it like they do the current one, or invent "rights" they claim are in it.
Yeah, goddam liberals, we need restrictions on civil rights, patriotic Americans!

thereby politicizing the judiciary more than it already is...

The judiciary's been political for 200 years, but that hasn't seemed to really hamper it much. It's preferable IMO to have non-elected officials measure districts with a few simple rules such as "ensure as close to even political membership as possible" than to continue to allow the same people who are elected by those same people rig the election in their favor.

I think the new Constitution should specifically map out the issues that are reserved to state governments, more local governments or the people.

Issues reserved to be legislated (or not) by the State government, more local governments - The federal government may not restrict or offer funding to states for changing the laws regarding these issues:
Illegal Drugs
Prescription Drugs
OTC Drugs (including tobacco and alcohol)
Prostitution
Age requirements for body art
Gambling
Speed limits
Helmet laws
Seatbelt laws
Euthanasia
Abortion

The purpose of the above is not to prevent legislation of these issues but to move the power of controlling the legislation of these issues closer to the people. The original intent of the founding fathers was for states to be different on many issues so that we can move to a state that best represents our desired level of government. Feel free to add to the rights that cannot be legislated by the federal government. I will in the future.

My one friend had a brilliant idea.

Instead of a Bill of Rights, you break it into 3 parts.

Responsibilities the government has to the people
Responsibilities the people have to the government
Responsibilities the people have to their fellow citizens.

You will outline all that the government must do for their citizens, no ifs and or buts.

A large problem in this country is that everyone disagrees on the purpose of the government. If you outline what their duties are, this is gone.

Then with people to goverment and people to people, it's just saying that you need respect laws or face punishment, but still be critical of the government when you disagree.

People to people is simply respecting the rights and opinions of others, something that very few people do.

This thread is still flying around, yay!

seriously any time you guys feel like succeeding from the usa, give us a call there are more than enough British and other European students who would fly over and make up an international column or two. Hell id look forward to it, be able to see the nice states of American while shoot fascists.

May i make a suggestion though, i think you should directly amalgamate the bill of rights into the constitution, seeing as the constitution appears to be held much more important to the right than the bill of rights, then they wouldn’t be able to that.

seriously any time you guys feel like succeeding from the usa, give us a call there are more than enough British and other European students who would fly over and make up an international column or two. Hell id look forward to it, be able to see the nice states of American while shoot fascists.

heh, it'll be like the reverse abraham lincoln brigade. and somebody will get to write "homage to suburbia" and "for whom the road tolls". excellent.

heh, it'll be like the reverse abraham lincoln brigade. and somebody will get to write "homage to suburbia" and "for whom the road tolls". excellent.
hahahaah.

My ex room mate is the direct descendent of George Washington ( I know you wont believe me but seriously he even looks a shit load like the paintings) great x10 nephew and he’s bloody good at strategy games, if i get him aboard will you all agree to succeed

Hello to all my friends in domestic surveillance.

This isn't serious folks! This is intellectual tomfoolery. I love mah Union!

No critiques of my model beyond the concentration of power in the federal gov't, eh? Hurray!