NationStates Jolt Archive

Many problems seem to have recently arisen with the US Constitution. One of the earliest in modern times being growing discontentment with the electoral college. Many people have gone as far as to call for its removal; A process which by its own merit, would be long and arduous.

More problems have been borne of recent executive (Spying) and legislative (Patriot Act) ignorance of the protective provisions of the constitution, along with a judicial system that can never truly agree on a solid interpretation of the said document. Of course, the Constitution itself is intentionally vague, which produces problems when accepted rights, such as privacy, aren't specifically worded even though they are implied. It sometimes seems that the flow of politics concerns itself only with those provisions of the constitution it respectively agrees with.

My question is, then: Has the time come for a new constitution? Especially one that is built around the changes made in the 14th Amendment(National citizens vs State Citizens)? If a new one was constructed what changes should be made? Should amendments be added or taken away?

Or, do you feel this constitution has stood the test of time?

Many problems seem to have recently arisen with the US Constitution.
[...]
Or, do you feel this constitution has stood the test of time?
No. It just needs to be used as it was intended. Limiting the power of government is the purpose of the Constitution. It's not a rag that we need to change because getting a gay marriage prohibition will win us a few votes. It's a pretty good foundation for law and if there is a change that is widely desired, there's a way to implement it.

Even Jefferson agreed there might one day be the need for a new constitution. Also, what good is it when it is consistently ignored?

Well, the original text of the constitution should not be taken as Holy Writ. Hence the possibility of amendments. All the same, I'd rather that than whatever today's politicians could come up with.

Incidentally, if there is a new constitution, it should be subject to a referendum.

The problem is that GW Bush seems to think he is above it.

Thank God in 2008 he's no longer a factor.

The problem is that GW Bush seems to think he is above it.

Thank God in 2008 he's no longer a factor.

Jeb Bush for pres!

The us should adopt an uncodified constitution like the UK's, then you don't get any of this tosserish 2/3 majority stuff.

Jeb Bush for pres!
I hope for your sakes Jon Stewart runs.

The president CAN override some parts of the constitution for VERY short periods of time. Martial law. Suspend Habeus corpus, etc.

Constitution? Bah! Bring back the Articles of Confederation, I say.

Constitution? Bah! Bring back the Articles of Confederation, I say.

A strong bond of friendship is just what we need right now.

Many problems seem to have recently arisen with the US Constitution. One of the earliest in modern times being growing discontentment with the electoral college. Many people have gone as far as to call for its removal; A process which by its own merit, would be long and arduous.

More problems have been borne of recent executive (Spying) and legislative (Patriot Act) ignorance of the protective provisions of the constitution, along with a judicial system that can never truly agree on a solid interpretation of the said document. Of course, the Constitution itself is intentionally vague, which produces problems when accepted rights, such as privacy, aren't specifically worded even though they are implied. It sometimes seems that the flow of politics concerns itself only with those provisions of the constitution it respectively agrees with.

My question is, then: Has the time come for a new constitution? Especially one that is built around the changes made in the 14th Amendment(National citizens vs State Citizens)? If a new one was constructed what changes should be made? Should amendments be added or taken away?

Or, do you feel this constitution has stood the test of time?


It is time, the current one is outdated and way to vague to truly aid this country. English needs to be added into as does border security and a clearer definition on the 1st amendment. The 1st admendment only applies to congress, define it and expand it.

Liasia']The us should adopt an uncodified constitution like the UK's, then you don't get any of this tosserish 2/3 majority stuff.


Maybe we should just dump this freedom thing and rejoin the UK? Seriously, they are better anyway.

Maybe we should just dump this freedom thing and rejoin the UK? Seriously, they are better anyway.

Does the UK still want us?

I think the U.S.Constitution is fine in as it is and doesn't need to be revised in any way. I think what really needs to be changed is the government establishment who violate it without remorse (warrantless wiretapping, "delayed notification" provisions of the USA Patriot Act) and construe it beyond its scope (Roe v. Wade). With a new Consitution, these practices would surely continue anyway.

Does the UK still want us?



Who cares! Join em anyway! :p :D


They get us they have uberpower, who wouldn't want that? HEIL UBERENGLAND!:D

The problem is that GW Bush seems to think he is above it.

Thank God in 2008 he's no longer a factor.

At first I blamed Bush for it, but then the congress bi-partisanly passed both the patriot act and its renewal, even Hillary voted for both. I believe the constitution is a great document, but its not above stupidity and power hunger. How to protect it from these things?

The president CAN override some parts of the constitution for VERY short periods of time. Martial law. Suspend Habeus corpus, etc.
No he can't. He an declare martial law, but habeus corpus can only be suspended by Congress.

Maybe we should just dump this freedom thing and rejoin the UK? Seriously, they are better anyway.
I would agree, but i'd get dumped on by the whole forum. Seriously tho, the rigidity of the US constitution seems like a tiny bit of an advantage.

Well, quite frankly, if I was a politician in the UK, I'd be reluctant to let in a huge voter base that had been forcibly seperate for several hundred years...

No he can't. He an declare martial law, but habeus corpus can only be suspended by Congress.

That's legally. But since when have wartime presidents cared about that sort of legality?

That's legally. But since when have wartime presidents cared about that sort of legality?
This is true, but technically he's not able to.

Of couse SCOTUS just slapped President Bush about that and President Bush does seem to be abiding by the order as compaired to President Lincoln who just ignored it.

There's nothing wrong with the constitution, we just need a government that respects the constitution and realizes that there are rights specifically stated and rights implied, and it is a document that should be used to protect people's freedom and never altered in a way that would threaten freedom in any way.
I think it's also good that it stays vague. Things change too drastically over the course of time for making it less vauge to work, such as technology and social views.

Liasia']I hope for your sakes Jon Stewart runs.

If Jon Stewart runs, i'm voting for him. Man would i love to see the debate between Jeb Bush and Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart knows how to debate, like he did on crossfire.

If Jon Stewart runs, i'm voting for him. Man would i love to see the debate between Jeb Bush and Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart knows how to debate, like he did on crossfire.
I watched that today.
Stewart completely pWns. Watch him on richard and judy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKj3kkPWQIM&search=jon%20stewart%20richard%20and%20judy

Incidentally, if there is a new constitution, it should be subject to a referendum.

Getting rid of the current Constitution would be a lot like amending it. However, getting rid of the Constitution would make the states revert to being 50 independent republics until a new Constitution were drafted, and the states accepted it.

Getting rid of the current Constitution would be a lot like amending it. However, getting rid of the Constitution would make the states revert to being 50 independent republics until a new Constitution were drafted, and the states accepted it.

No it wouldn't. The old one would apply until the new one was brought into effect - or not brought into effect.

Everyone who says that there's nothing wrong with it is right. It's short, it's flexible and it works. The only thing is making sure government abides by the spirit of it and doesn't treat it like a political football.

No it wouldn't. The old one would apply until the new one was brought into effect - or not brought into effect.

Everyone who says that there's nothing wrong with it is right. It's short, it's flexible and it works. The only thing is making sure government abides by the spirit of it and doesn't treat it like a political football.

What if not all of the states agreed with it? Say a couple of states absolutely refused to sign on to the new Constitution due to some provisions that the rest of the states wouldn't budge on? What would happen to those states who didn't sign on? Rhode Island didn't want to sign on to the Constitution originally, until the US threatened to start treating Rhode Island as a foreign country.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with the document itself. However, the problem is defining what the "spirit" of it is in the first place.

We're not qualified to write a new constitution. If we tried, it would probably be about 2,000 pages long. :p

The Constitution is an amazingly simple and powerful document. To replace it with another amazingly simple and powerful document doesn't seem possible in today's political arena. I think the best we can hope for is modification and evolution of the core document. Afterall, in many ways, the Constitution is already somewhat changed from what it was when it began.

One of the most interesting things is the continued securing of rights for the people. When the Bill of Rights was proposed to be added to the Constitution in order to compromise and get the whole ratified, there were many politicians who felt it was unnecessary. They thought that the rights protcted by it were a given in any nation protected by the Constitution. They felt it was a redundant document. All things considering, I'm glad they were there. Aren't you?

The Amendments to the Constitution were designed to limit government's ability to curtail the rights of the people. As the years gone by, many amendments have carried that tradition. Of the ones that haven't, all but three involve procedural changes of government. One of those, the 16th is a clarification of Income Tax. Of the remaining two, one is the Wholly inappropriate 18th(prohibition) and it's fortunate repeal(21st).

As the Constitution and the country evolves, I hope people continue to keep that in mind. There have already been recent attempts to Amend the constitution to limit the rights of the people. That can't happen. It's against the spirit of the Constitution and it's about as unamerican and unpatriotic an action as one can perform.

That's legally. But since when have wartime presidents cared about that sort of legality?
Lincoln got bitchslapped by the courts and complied.

I feel that the English Parliament works a lot smoother and faster than our government. But their country is smaller and they don't have states.
I don't think a new Constitution can be written without actually changing the geography of the country.
And who wants to live in a stupid province anyway?

I feel that the English Parliament works a lot smoother and faster than our government. But their country is smaller and they don't have states.
I don't think a new Constitution can be written without actually changing the geography of the country.
And who wants to live in a stupid province anyway?
Scotland, Wales and NI...

Liasia']Scotland, Wales and NI...

Yeah, but can't the British Parliament just dissolve the devolved parliaments whenever it wants? Congress can't do that with a state government.

Yeah, but can't the British Parliament just dissolve the devolved parliaments whenever it wants? Congress can't do that with a state government.
Yeh it can. Doubt anyone would be massively pleased tho

Liasia']Scotland, Wales and NI...


You are correct, but the English system is completely different. Each region gets to elect one member to the house of commons. No district has more power than any other. Tony Blair is the same parliamentary rep as any other member of the house of commons. There is no such thing as "California having 53 electoral votes"

You are correct, but the English system is completely different. Each region gets to elect one member to the house of commons. No district has more power than any other. Tony Blair is the same parliamentary rep as any other member of the house of commons. There is no such thing as "California having 53 electoral votes"

Well I'd be kind of scared if California was electing MPs.

Many problems seem to have recently arisen with the US Constitution. One of the earliest in modern times being growing discontentment with the electoral college. Many people have gone as far as to call for its removal; A process which by its own merit, would be long and arduous.

More problems have been borne of recent executive (Spying) and legislative (Patriot Act) ignorance of the protective provisions of the constitution, along with a judicial system that can never truly agree on a solid interpretation of the said document. Of course, the Constitution itself is intentionally vague, which produces problems when accepted rights, such as privacy, aren't specifically worded even though they are implied. It sometimes seems that the flow of politics concerns itself only with those provisions of the constitution it respectively agrees with.

My question is, then: Has the time come for a new constitution? Especially one that is built around the changes made in the 14th Amendment(National citizens vs State Citizens)? If a new one was constructed what changes should be made? Should amendments be added or taken away?

Or, do you feel this constitution has stood the test of time?

The Constitution has more than withstood the test of time it has changed the way the world views individual freedom . As an instument the Constitution has evolved over the years through ammendments to reflect the values of the people who choose to freely live under its protections and who swear to defend it .
Simply ammend or attempt to ammend the constitution if you feel it doesnt reflect current thinking or attitudes you choose to live under . Good luck trying . You better be sure you have at least two thirds of the electorate ..two thirds of the people of the US on your side .

You will be lucky to get 10 percent on the electorial college . And the patriot act is a CONGRESSIONAL decision , debated and passed by the congreess . any Excecutive decision deemed Unconstitutional is and has been addressed by the Supreme court . So it works ...it has proven only recently how well .

The Constitution has more than withstood the test of time it has changed the way the world views individual freedom . As an instument the Constitution has evolved over the years through ammendments to reflect the values of the people who choose to freely live under its protections and who swear to defend it .
Simply ammend or attempt to ammend the constitution if you feel it doesnt reflect current thinking or attitudes you choose to live under . Good luck trying . You better be sure you have at least two thirds of the electorate ..two thirds of the people of the US on your side .

You will be lucky to get 10 percent on the electorial college . And the patriot act is a CONGRESSIONAL decision , debated and passed by the congreess . any Excecutive decision deemed Unconstitutional is and has been addressed by the Supreme court . So it works ...it has proven only recently how well .
Considering you've only being using it 200 years, i think time has yet to tell.

No way can we write a new Constitution right now. We'd end up with little things slipped in there by legal experts to be exploited later, etc. The current Constitution just needs enforcement is all. Which the courts need to do by using their checks on both the legislature and the executive. When the legislature passes a bill that violates the Constitution *coughPATRIOTACTcough* the courts are supposed to step in and say the law is unconstitutional and get rid of it. When the President declares something against the Constitution, like say, when Bush said he was above the law, they should step in and be like "Hold up now. You can't do that." Ya know, something to that effect.

But I'm just a darn laberal who likes the rights given to me by the Constitution. :rolleyes:

Liasia']Considering you've only being using it 200 years, i think time has yet to tell.


And in those two hundred years a mechanism has proven able to blend and unite 300 million people of every race , creed and color in the world and make them the most powerfull country in both military and economic terms with freedoms that are guaranteed that others can only wish for or envy .

So I guess we better change it. Its too good .


And just for the sake of accuracy do note that the United States of America is a confederation of sovergn states operating as a democratic republic .
so breech that obsticle before entertaining parlimentary rule . Its kind of stupid on the face of it to think you could govern the US in that way .

Liasia']Considering you've only being using it 200 years, i think time has yet to tell.
True, it has not been an extremely long period of time but it has been significant. Few other countries have lasted so long with the same codified set of laws. Like seriously, what number of republic is France on now? Like the 5th or something. Really, we were one of the first democracies of the time period and we have had a relatively long lasting and stable government with a few more good years left from the look of it.

No way can we write a new Constitution right now. We'd end up with little things slipped in there by legal experts to be exploited later, etc. The current Constitution just needs enforcement is all. Which the courts need to do by using their checks on both the legislature and the executive. When the legislature passes a bill that violates the Constitution *coughPATRIOTACTcough* the courts are supposed to step in and say the law is unconstitutional and get rid of it. When the President declares something against the Constitution, like say, when Bush said he was above the law, they should step in and be like "Hold up now. You can't do that." Ya know, something to that effect.

But I'm just a darn laberal who likes the rights given to me by the Constitution. :rolleyes:
Courts can and do so, but it needs to be brought to their attention. They are not supposed to go wandering out issuing legal opinions without something having been brought before them.

Liasia']Yeh it can. Doubt anyone would be massively pleased tho

Not to jump off topic

Im almost positive that the federal government cannot dissolve a state government unless that state declares itself seperated. Under the constitution the federal government can do no such thing.

Oh, and for someone else, Congress is the Legislative branch.

Back on topic:

To tell the truth, I am not for discarding the constitution. I was really just playing devils advocate because I was curious about others feelings. In reality, I think there is nothing wrong with the constitution, but instead something wrong with the people it protects.

Many people are not educated enough about their government, or concerned enough to do anything in their own protection. That said, I am not content with the modern view of the constitution, but I trust the people to right themselves when they get angry enough ;)

The US constitution is indeed a great one – unfortunately the intent of it has been grossly twisted out of shape and manipulated to server political ends. Words are given new meanings and small clauses are used for the flimsiest justification well beyond the intent of the law. The federal government was supposed to be very limited in scope. As the years have gone by it has bloated up as politicians and bureaucrats have grown like bacteria in a cracked kitchen tile.

We do not need to scrap it and start again – if we tried that, we would have a century of lawyers niggling every word (the definition of “is”?) and in the end it would be so large and cumbersome no citizen would be able to read it before being asked to vote on it.

There are laws and regulations restricting everything you want to do – many of our ‘freedoms’ are just illusions. Bit by bit we have allowed the government to encroach into our lives until they have control over everything.

The federal government was meant to be restricted to only a few basic functions to keep it small and reduce its intrusion into the lives of the people. The states were supposed to retain most of the day to day governing of the people because local politics are more accountable to the constituents and can adapt to the individual situations better (of course will an apathetic citizenry it doesn’t really matter – there is very little oversight on politicians).

The power to regulate interstate commerce was intended to make sure no state imposed tariffs or interfered with trade through the nation – it was not meant to allow the federal government the right to specify the ingredients and production process for all products.

Senators were supposed to be chosen by the state governments, not directly by the people, because they were not the representatives of the people (that’s what the house is for). Making them directly elected was a mistake because now they have to spend most of their time fundraising to be able to afford an election campaign – and in come the special interests. The Representatives were the voice of the people as the Senators were the voice of government – and were supposed to think more toward proper governance rather than petty politics pandering to interest groups.

What was supposed to be limited to just warfare and international trade had ballooned into a mass of red tape making life very difficult. I came across this article the other day that pretty much sums up my feelings on modern government:

http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Salatin_Sept03.pdf

Federal Government has been going to far for years. its time for another Civil war! :mp5: :sniper: :mad:

Im almost positive that the federal government cannot dissolve a state government unless that state declares itself seperated. Under the constitution the federal government can do no such thing.

I'm pretty sure they were answering my question about the British Parliament being able to dissolve the devolved parliaments.

I suppose the Federal government could dissolve a state government if it seperated, but only by invasion and occupation.

Many problems seem to have recently arisen with the US Constitution. One of the earliest in modern times being growing discontentment with the electoral college. Many people have gone as far as to call for its removal; A process which by its own merit, would be long and arduous.

More problems have been borne of recent executive (Spying) and legislative (Patriot Act) ignorance of the protective provisions of the constitution, along with a judicial system that can never truly agree on a solid interpretation of the said document. Of course, the Constitution itself is intentionally vague, which produces problems when accepted rights, such as privacy, aren't specifically worded even though they are implied. It sometimes seems that the flow of politics concerns itself only with those provisions of the constitution it respectively agrees with.

My question is, then: Has the time come for a new constitution? Especially one that is built around the changes made in the 14th Amendment(National citizens vs State Citizens)? If a new one was constructed what changes should be made? Should amendments be added or taken away?

Or, do you feel this constitution has stood the test of time?

It has stood the test of time. It is the shortest written and longest serving and there is no need to change it.

Constitution? Bah! Bring back the Articles of Confederation, I say.

The founders scrapped it for a reason.

I think the U.S.Constitution is fine in as it is and doesn't need to be revised in any way. I think what really needs to be changed is the government establishment who violate it without remorse (warrantless wiretapping, "delayed notification" provisions of the USA Patriot Act) and construe it beyond its scope (Roe v. Wade). With a new Consitution, these practices would surely continue anyway.

Amen. I'd rather see it taken and twisted to include Abortion (like it already has), gay marriage and a host of other things. I would revolt against any attempt to destroy the Constitution. You want a new constitution, go somewhere where they write a new one annually (like Mexico).

It has stood the test of time. It is the shortest written and longest serving and there is no need to change it.

And there never will be a reason to scrap it. It is the best the world has, and there will never be one better.

Amen. I'd rather see it taken and twisted to include Abortion (like it already has), gay marriage and a host of other things. I would revolt against any attempt to destroy the Constitution. You want a new constitution, go somewhere where they write a new one annually (like Mexico).

It doesn't have to be "twisted" to protect new rights. All you need is the 9th Amendment.

The president CAN override some parts of the constitution for VERY short periods of time. Martial law. Suspend Habeus corpus, etc.

Congress suspends Habeus Corpus. Bush is claiming that he has the authority to suspend it, but that he isn't suspending it, indefinitly.

But the only reason he can claim that he isn't suspending it is because he refuses to acknowledge that words have meanings.

You can violate a law without violating it if you are merely "not using it," or you can be welcome by people who are trying to kill you because you "were welcome, it just wasn't a peaceful welcome."

By the same token, Bush is a good president, he just hasn't presided.

No way can we write a new Constitution right now. We'd end up with little things slipped in there by legal experts to be exploited later, etc. The current Constitution just needs enforcement is all. Which the courts need to do by using their checks on both the legislature and the executive. When the legislature passes a bill that violates the Constitution *coughPATRIOTACTcough* the courts are supposed to step in and say the law is unconstitutional and get rid of it. When the President declares something against the Constitution, like say, when Bush said he was above the law, they should step in and be like "Hold up now. You can't do that." Ya know, something to that effect.

But I'm just a darn laberal who likes the rights given to me by the Constitution. :rolleyes:

Well then, here's what you do.

Get all those politicians together. Tell them that their legal experts can't come in and they can't bring in any papers. They all have to get blind stinking drunk. Then they're allowed to put down what they want on paper. To paraphrase Homer Simpson "They're not signing this until I read it, or someone gives them the gist of it."

Amen. I'd rather see it taken and twisted to include Abortion (like it already has), gay marriage and a host of other things. I would revolt against any attempt to destroy the Constitution. You want a new constitution, go somewhere where they write a new one annually (like Mexico).

It hasn't been changed to include abortion. It specifically gives us privacy (the right to be secure in our persons and effects (stuff)). The right to abortion was based on the government having no right to find out whether or not we were having them. The same with birth control.

The constitution also does not give the federal government any authority over marriage. The only reason it has the authority to mention it at all is because the constitution gives congress the authority to levy taxes, and the "Defense of Marriage Act" pretty much does nothing other than deny tax benifits to gay couples even if they're married.

It hasn't been changed to include abortion. It specifically gives us privacy (the right to be secure in our persons and effects (stuff)). The right to abortion was based on the government having no right to find out whether or not we were having them. The same with birth control.

The constitution also does not give the federal government any authority over marriage. The only reason it has the authority to mention it at all is because the constitution gives congress the authority to levy taxes, and the "Defense of Marriage Act" pretty much does nothing other than deny tax benifits to gay couples even if they're married.

I'm not here to debate those issues.

I'm only strongly vocalizing my eternal objection to scrap our Constitution, or replace it, or make a new one. I'd fight to the death if someone made an honest attempt to do that.

Well, my observation is that it would either need replacing or amending:

* Direct election of the President
* Uniform system to elect (including Ballots) and qualifications of electors to the Congress and President.
* Gurantee proportional represention in all legislative bodies and instant runoff voting to unipersonal executive posts.
* Term limits to senators and representatives.
* Allow ballot initatives on a federal level.
* Fixed, non renewable terms for the Supreme Court.
* Ban gerrymandering.

Personally, I think the "This is how the founders intended it to be" business is BS. The constitution may be the oldest still in effect, so I think it's trial period can be now considered over. Plus, I'm a Brit, and thus don't have a constitution or founders at all.:p

I'm not here to debate those issues.

I'm only strongly vocalizing my eternal objection to scrap our Constitution, or replace it, or make a new one. I'd fight to the death if someone made an honest attempt to do that.


I'm Right beside you . Although I prefer to fight to their deaths.

Well, my observation is that it would either need replacing or amending:

* Direct election of the President
* Uniform system to elect (including Ballots) and qualifications of electors to the Congress and President.
* Gurantee proportional represention in all legislative bodies and instant runoff voting to unipersonal executive posts.
* Term limits to senators and representatives.
* Allow ballot initatives on a federal level.
* Fixed, non renewable terms for the Supreme Court.
* Ban gerrymandering.

Personally, I think the "This is how the founders intended it to be" business is BS. The constitution may be the oldest still in effect, so I think it's trial period can be now considered over. Plus, I'm a Brit, and thus don't have a constitution or founders at all.:p

Then you have no say over OUR Constitution. A rather comforting thought. I'd have to kill you though if you tried the crap you mentioned. At least the "replace it" part.
I could go for an amendment limiting Congressional terms, gerrymandering, and allowing more initiative from the People on the federal level.

I'm Right beside you . Although I prefer to fight to their deaths.

A VERY good point.

General MacArthur said something along the lines of "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his."

The founders scrapped it for a reason.

because the reactionaries feared the revolution they had helped spawn.

my god, they were letting women, blacks, and poor people vote in some states! and a bunch of pissed off revolutionaries were sick of being exploited by the new boss (who really was much the same as the old boss) and claiming that the revolution had made all equal and that all the land should be held in common!

A VERY good point.

General MacArthur said something along the lines of "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his."


Nope Patton said that .

Nope Patton said that .

Thank you. I knew I had something wrong.

because the reactionaries feared the revolution they had helped spawn.

my god, they were letting women, blacks, and poor people vote in some states! and a bunch of pissed off revolutionaries were sick of being exploited by the new boss (who really was much the same as the old boss) and claiming that the revolution had made all equal and that all the land should be held in common!

Shut up about our Founding Fathers. They made do with what they had. Never said they were perfect. And what would a Soviet know about "Freedom"?

because the reactionaries feared the revolution they had helped spawn.

my god, they were letting women, blacks, and poor people vote in some states! and a bunch of pissed off revolutionaries were sick of being exploited by the new boss (who really was much the same as the old boss) and claiming that the revolution had made all equal and that all the land should be held in common!

Actually they found out that pure democracy DID NOT WORK ..you could get nothing done and laws would be changed to encroach on the minority rights of others in the community at large . They also found out rather fast that those with MONEY still had power to influence and buy votes to a GREATER extent than ever before possible . And CONSIDERING they were trying to UNITE a group of SOVERGN states ...some of them Slaveholding states and that every state had the right to tax imports from other states in the proposed UNION along with no provisions for a STRONG central government..
The articles of confederation were deemed a failure and tossed out as a faile experiment as they should have been and a new instument was worked out to UNITE the people of the thirteen very different colonies.
ITS BECAUSE of the Articles of confederation that we got the BILL OF RIGHTS . So we should all be thankfull for it . And we can also thank them for the Civil war .

Actually they found out that pure democracy DID NOT WORK ..you could get nothing done and laws would be changed to encroach on the minority rights of others in the community at large .

wait

so you think that the articles of confederation were an exercise of 'pure democracy', that both could get nothing done and kept changing the laws to encroach on minority rights?

you seem a bit confused

Shut up about our Founding Fathers. They made do with what they had. Never said they were perfect. And what would a Soviet know about "Freedom"?


haha, you're cute

wait

so you think that the articles of confederation were an exercise of 'pure democracy', that both could get nothing done and kept changing the laws to encroach on minority rights?

you seem a bit confused

Nope. Democracy doesn't work. A Constitution-bound Republic with Democratically elected leaders and Republicly-elected leaders works just fine.

Democracy doesn't work. A Constitution-bound Republic with Democratically elected leaders and Republicly-elected leaders works just fine.

you seem a bit confused as well

Niaman, I may be missing your point entirely but it seems to be that you have no problem with Constitutional Amendments, even if they twist it out of all recognition, but you absolutely would not support any changing of or replacement of the Constituion? With respect, that seems totally mixed up and incoherent.

Also, to pretty much everyone, the US Constitution is not the oldest written one, nor is it the longest operating, nor is it the envy of the world, nor the only one to guarantee freedoms, nor does the US have a standard of living that everyone else is jealous of, nor are you the only democracy, nor the guardians of democracy, nor the inventors of democracy, nor the inventors of freedoms, nor of liberties. Puh-lease.

Also, to pretty much everyone, the US Constitution is not the oldest written one

I believe it's the 2nd oldest, with Massachussetts having the oldest. The oldest written and still operating constitution, that is.

wait

so you think that the articles of confederation were an exercise of 'pure democracy', that both could get nothing done and kept changing the laws to encroach on minority rights?

you seem a bit confused


Well if you knew that democracy means MAJORITY rules ...maybe you would also know that by changing the Majority you could revoke the former majority laws . And you would also know that when the majority makes laws it often does so at the expense and the detriment of the minority .
If you knew anything at all about how the articles of confederation and the different constitutions and charters of the 13 origional states actualy worked ..or didnt work..in practice , maybe you would not be so confused .

But I cant account for your lack of insight into something I can see and understand so clearly .

I believe it's the 2nd oldest, with Massachussetts having the oldest. The oldest written and still operating constitution, that is.

unless we count the haudenosaunee's wampum belts as 'writing'

Well if you knew that democracy means MAJORITY rules ...maybe you would also know that by changing the Majority you could revoke the former majority laws . And you would also know that when the majority makes laws it often does so at the expense and the detriment of the minority .
If you knew anything at all about how the articles of confederation and the different constitutions and charters of the 13 origional states actualy worked ..or didnt work..in practice , maybe you would not be so confused .

But I cant account for your lack of insight into something I can see and understand so clearly .

you must be using some even stranger than usual definition of "pure democracy" in order for it to apply to the government under the articles. so please define your term.

and i still don't see how you can at the same time get nothing done, and change the laws to whatever you want. perhaps you should try explaining it to me.

Well if you knew that democracy means MAJORITY rules ...maybe you would also know that by changing the Majority you could revoke the former majority laws . And you would also know that when the majority makes laws it often does so at the expense and the detriment of the minority .
If you knew anything at all about how the articles of confederation and the different constitutions and charters of the 13 origional states actualy worked ..or didnt work..in practice , maybe you would not be so confused .

But I cant account for your lack of insight into something I can see and understand so clearly .

He's pointing out the fact that the Articles of Confederation were not too democratic, because passing a law was even more difficult under the Articles than under the Constitution. That is in fact why the Articles failed: it was so difficult to get unaminous consent on laws, pay bills when the states were only supposed to make "voluntary" contributions, that the government could not function. In effect, the problem under the Articles was that there were so many procedural hurdles that the government failed in its efforts to represent the people.

you must be using some even stranger than usual definition of "pure democracy" in order for it to apply to the government under the articles. so please define your term.

and i still don't see how you can at the same time get nothing done, and change the laws to whatever you want. perhaps you should try explaining it to me.

Fine then, here's the operating definition of "Democracy" in this debate

"One man, one vote, every man votes on everything", also known as "Mobocracy" or Mob rule, strict majority with no deference to minority.

because the reactionaries feared the revolution they had helped spawn.

my God. You really are ignorant aren't you. It just didn't work and they all knew it wasn't working. That is why they called for a convention to look at reforming it. They wound up replacing the Articles of Confederation. It had nothing to do with voting rights.

Fine then, here's the operating definition of "Democracy" in this debate

"One man, one vote, every man votes on everything", also known as "Mobocracy" or Mob rule, strict majority with no deference to minority.

are you and Ultraextreme Sanity the same person?

are you and Ultraextreme Sanity the same person?

No. He's more level headed and would rather debate you. I'd rather tear your head off. Talk is cheap. Let's just see who's alive after round in the ring, and be done with it.

I believe it's the 2nd oldest, with Massachussetts having the oldest. The oldest written and still operating constitution, that is.

Its the oldest NATIONAL Constitution. We aren't talking state constitutions here but national ones. In that regards, the US has the longest serving constitution.

my God. You really are ignorant aren't you. It just didn't work and they all knew it wasn't working. That is why they called for a convention to look at reforming it. They wound up replacing the Articles of Confederation. It had nothing to do with voting rights.

define "all"

especially in such a way as to explain the existence of anti-federalists, and a number of very close votes on ratification (and even more anti-federalist feelings among the general populace...)

No.

then kindly stfu when i ask Ultraextreme Sanity a question

Its the oldest NATIONAL Constitution. We aren't talking state constitutions here but national ones. In that regards, the US has the longest serving constitution.

before the ratification of the articles, the states were quasi-independent nations.

and i wouldn't write off the haudenosaunee so quickly

then kindly stfu when i ask Ultraextreme Sanity a question

Contrary to what you would like, I have the Freedom to Speak. I can say whatever I want. A big reason to keep the US Constitution. :D

before the ratification of the articles, the states were quasi-independent nations.

That is true but all 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. All 13 Colonies had people signing up for the Colonial Army. And all 13 colonies signed and ratified the AoC. They were all working together (some more than others) to kick britain out and to form a new nation.

The AoC didn't work. If it was working, they would not have met to rework it which ultimately led to the United States Constitution.

my God. You really are ignorant aren't you. It just didn't work and they all knew it wasn't working. That is why they called for a convention to look at reforming it. They wound up replacing the Articles of Confederation. It had nothing to do with voting rights.
FS is most certainly right. The constitution (along with other reforms of the time) was a conservative backlash against the rather liberal constitutions of the post-revolutionary era (most notably Pennsylvania's). For example, the AoC gave each state one vote, a veto, etc. This made states extremely strong, and created a weak government, instead relying more upon a strong legislative at the state level to make the laws of the country. The Constitution, among other things, was designed to insure that the rabble can't run the country (the senate for obvious reasons, the house of representatives was made such that only the wealthiest could afford to run, a strong executive elected by the elite of each state)

FS is most certainly right. The constitution (along with other reforms of the time) was a conservative backlash against the rather liberal constitutions of the post-revolutionary era (most notably Pennsylvania's). For example, the AoC gave each state one vote, a veto, etc. This made states extremely strong, and created a weak government, instead relying more upon a strong legislative at the state level to make the laws of the country. The Constitution, among other things, was designed to insure that the rabble can't run the country (the senate for obvious reasons, the house of representatives was made such that only the wealthiest could afford to run, a strong executive elected by the elite of each state)

I don't think that was the Fathers' intention, its more of a side-affect that needs to be remedied. But right now the One who has the Gold Makes the Rules. :headbang:

I don't think that was the Fathers' intention, its more of a side-affect that needs to be remedied. But right now the One who has the Gold Makes the Rules. :headbang:
Ever read the papers of the federalists? They hated democracy. Mob rule. Democracy was a curse word. They knew exactly what they were doing when they created the government to ensure that the richest ruled.

He's pointing out the fact that the Articles of Confederation were not too democratic, because passing a law was even more difficult under the Articles than under the Constitution.

now now, we mustn't let mere historical fact get in the way of an incoherent rant

now now, we mustn't let mere historical fact get in the way of an incoherent rant

Why? I love incoherent rants. I love making incoherent rants. And my First Amendment rights give me the privelige to do so.

Ever read the papers of the federalists? They hated democracy. Mob rule. Democracy was a curse word. They knew exactly what they were doing when they created the government to ensure that the richest ruled.

Yea I do have the Federalist Papers. A good read. It should be required reading material. It goes to show how smart those people actually were.

Why? I love incoherent rants. I love making incoherent rants. And my First Amendment rights give me the privelige to do so.

you are aware, of course, that it was the anti-federalists that created and forced the inclusion of the bill of rights into the constitution, yes?

Yea I do have the Federalist Papers. A good read. It should be required reading material. It goes to show how smart those people actually were.
I didn't say the federalist papers. I said their writings. They extend beyond the federalist papers.

At any rate, then you know that they did not like democracy, and in a large part the new government was created to curtail states that had overly liberal constitutions.

I didn't say the federalist papers. I said their writings. They extend beyond the federalist papers.

At any rate, then you know that they did not like democracy, and in a large part the new government was created to curtail states that had overly liberal constitutions.

And I'm sure you know that they did not create a democracy.

And I'm sure you know that they did not create a democracy.
In the articles? They pretty much did. They gave the states too much power and didn't retain enough for a centralized government. Too many states were being run by 'radicals' for the liking of the elite, and combined with the other failings of the AoC lead to the creation of the Constitution which was designed to ensure that the common person did not get a say in government.

Not really, it's fine as it is. It just needs to be used/read more by the people in power. (all the people in power, going back many years!)


Maybe we should just dump this freedom thing and rejoin the UK? Seriously, they are better anyway.
I "seriously" hope that was a joke...:rolleyes:

In the articles? They pretty much did. They gave the states too much power and didn't retain enough for a centralized government. Too many states were being run by 'radicals' for the liking of the elite, and combined with the other failings of the AoC lead to the creation of the Constitution which was designed to ensure that the common person did not get a say in government.

Also...back then, they didn't want a strong central government for we just got done fighting a government that had a strong central government. However, they realized they needed a strong central government in order for the country to survive.

Hence, we have our Republic.

Also...back then, they didn't want a strong central government for we just got done fighting a government that had a strong central government. However, they realized they needed a strong central government in order for the country to survive.

Hence, we have our Republic.
It had less to do with the country surviving and more to do with reigning in states.

It had less to do with the country surviving and more to do with reigning in states.

Partly true but it also had to do with surving and international affairs. It came about when the treaty with France. The French rep asked if there should be one treaty or 13.

Also...back then, they didn't want a strong central government for we just got done fighting a government that had a strong central government. However, they realized they needed a strong central government in order for the country to survive.

substitute "elite power" for "the country" and you'd be much closer. there was no fundamental threat to the country's existence posed by shay's rebellion, but that was what weighed heavily upon the minds of the elites that went off to write up some 'amendments to the articles'.

and, of course, the annapolis convention really just wound up endorsing alexander hamilton's call for a constitutional convention. remember, hamilton was a strong support of centralized government and elite rule, and had already contemplated a coup against congress back in 1782. the constitution was a reactionary blow to the revolution pulled off by elites who feared the revolutionary sentiments of the populace.

you are aware, of course, that it was the anti-federalists that created and forced the inclusion of the bill of rights into the constitution, yes?

Yes. But that was really their only beef with the Constitution. They were happy once it was there. The idea of a Bill of Rights began at the Convention and was led by people who helped create the Constitution but were wary of not naming some basic rights.

But that was really their only beef with the Constitution

you're funny, kid

you're funny, kid

You keep laughing it up... :rolleyes:

The US constitution is indeed a great one – unfortunately the intent of it has been grossly twisted out of shape and manipulated to server political ends. Words are given new meanings and small clauses are used for the flimsiest justification well beyond the intent of the law. The federal government was supposed to be very limited in scope. As the years have gone by it has bloated up as politicians and bureaucrats have grown like bacteria in a cracked kitchen tile.

We do not need to scrap it and start again – if we tried that, we would have a century of lawyers niggling every word (the definition of “is”?) and in the end it would be so large and cumbersome no citizen would be able to read it before being asked to vote on it.

There are laws and regulations restricting everything you want to do – many of our ‘freedoms’ are just illusions. Bit by bit we have allowed the government to encroach into our lives until they have control over everything.

The federal government was meant to be restricted to only a few basic functions to keep it small and reduce its intrusion into the lives of the people. The states were supposed to retain most of the day to day governing of the people because local politics are more accountable to the constituents and can adapt to the individual situations better (of course will an apathetic citizenry it doesn’t really matter – there is very little oversight on politicians).

The power to regulate interstate commerce was intended to make sure no state imposed tariffs or interfered with trade through the nation – it was not meant to allow the federal government the right to specify the ingredients and production process for all products.

Senators were supposed to be chosen by the state governments, not directly by the people, because they were not the representatives of the people (that’s what the house is for). Making them directly elected was a mistake because now they have to spend most of their time fundraising to be able to afford an election campaign – and in come the special interests. The Representatives were the voice of the people as the Senators were the voice of government – and were supposed to think more toward proper governance rather than petty politics pandering to interest groups.

What was supposed to be limited to just warfare and international trade had ballooned into a mass of red tape making life very difficult. I came across this article the other day that pretty much sums up my feelings on modern government:

http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Salatin_Sept03.pdf
QFT ^



Amendment X
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.

qft ^

Just what are you trying to say, exactly?

Just what are you trying to say, exactly?

QFT = Quoted for Truth.

QFT = Quoted for Truth.

Ohhh. Thank You.

Ohhh. Thank You.

No problemo senior :D

Check out the Constitutional Party and their beliefs, I am partial to that way of thinking. If we don't like what our forefathers believed we can move somewhere else, don't just change what USED to work because individuals started bending and breaking to cater to a weak generation. We are unfortunately crumbling from inside our own borders.

Check out the Constitutional Party and their beliefs, I am partial to that way of thinking. If we don't like what our forefathers believed we can move somewhere else, don't just change what USED to work because individuals started bending and breaking to cater to a weak generation. We are unfortunately crumbling from inside our own borders.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Check out the Constitutional Party and their beliefs, I am partial to that way of thinking. If we don't like what our forefathers believed we can move somewhere else, don't just change what USED to work because individuals started bending and breaking to cater to a weak generation. We are unfortunately crumbling from inside our own borders.
No, we aren't "crumbling from inside our own borders," that's just what some people want you to believe so you'll be afraid most of the time and keep returning them to office. That said, I believe the US Constitution is one of the best yet written, and has stood the test of time. As for "bending and breaking to cater to a weak generation," would that be the weak generation that fought the Civil War and bent and broke the Constitution to outlaw slavery? Or the weak generation that whimpered out the amendment that gave women the vote? Or the weak generation that snivelled out the amendment that put election of Senators in the hands of the people? Which weak generation did you have in mind?

Check out the Constitutional Party and their beliefs

if you want to see a bunch of absolute lunatics that also happen to be historically and actually illiterate.

Check out the Constitutional Party and their beliefs, I am partial to that way of thinking. If we don't like what our forefathers believed we can move somewhere else, don't just change what USED to work because individuals started bending and breaking to cater to a weak generation. We are unfortunately crumbling from inside our own borders.

*Looks platform over*

It's fairly internally consistent, but it's pretty bad policy. How exactly we are to prosecute an effective fight against terrorist organizations like Al Queda with a tarriff tax method is beyond me.

Tomarrow is Independence Day and I can still, VOTE THE BUMS OUT!!

*Looks platform over*

It's fairly internally consistent, but it's pretty bad policy. How exactly we are to prosecute an effective fight against terrorist organizations like Al Queda with a tarriff tax method is beyond me.
Wait until we crank up the tariff on all those pistachio nuts and baba ganouj and hummus shipments, you'll see, they'll fold up like a cheap rug!

Let's face facts. The Constitution was an awesome document for its time, but it's nowhere near perfect. Hell, we had to write ten patches for the damn thing immediately after it was ratified, and 27 amendment later, we still have an Electoral College against all common sense.

Here are the things that I would change:

1) No age discrimination. You'd no longer need to be 18 to vote, 25 to run for the House, 30 to run for the Senate, or 35 to be President. I'd add a line saying "All people are legally equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other factors for which they are not responsible"

2) Voters would be allowed to vote for as many candidates as they liked per office. No ballot would be allowed to offer less than three candidates per office. Election Day would become Election Week. Voting machines would have to be tested prior to use, and any company engaging in voting shenanigans would be prohibited from having their equipment used in future elections - ever.

3) Get rid of the Electoral College. It was a retarded idea even 230 years ago. Presidents should be elected by direct popular vote.

4) Eliminate the concept of "states" being represented in Congress. Only the people would be represented. A UNIcameral legislature would run the show, with voting districts being allowed to cross state lines. The ratio of a district's perimeter to its area would be restricted in order to make Gerrymandering more difficult.

5) Supreme Court justices would be elected directly by the people and would serve limited terms. The President could only appoint replacements in the event of death or retirement, and these replacements would be temporary.

6) Presidents and legislators would serve one-year or two-year terms. They may be elected any number of times, but anyone who serves more than five consecutive years would have to take a five-year break before running again.

7) Congress would be prohibited from delegating legislative powers to other elements of government, like the EPA or FCC (we have sooooo many violations of the First Amendment thanks to the FCC...)

8) No law, nor any part of the Constitution, would be allowed to define the meaning of a word. That is a job for Oxford.

9) I'd get rid of the parts about the Post Office and Patent Office. We have UPS and shit now.

10) The salaries of legislators would be decided by the voters that they represent, not by the legislators themselves.

11) Ownership of animals would count as slavery. All former "owners" of animals would now be considered their legal guardians. They could only be adopted, not bought or sold. (hunting would still be OK though)

12) Federal funding may not be given to any business or private non-profit organization except in exchange for goods or services rendered to the government.

13) Any federal, state, or local law may be overturned by popular majority vote of the residents of that state/city/whatever.

14) The national debt may not be increased except during a state of war or other emergency.

15) No bill may be longer than 1000 words.

Let's face facts. The Constitution was an awesome document for its time, but it's nowhere near perfect. Hell, we had to write ten patches for the damn thing immediately after it was ratified, and 27 amendment later, we still have an Electoral College against all common sense.

Here are the things that I would change ...
Wow. I need to catch my breath.

Yes. But that was really their only beef with the Constitution. They were happy once it was there. The idea of a Bill of Rights began at the Convention and was led by people who helped create the Constitution but were wary of not naming some basic rights.
No. That was the beef of enough legislators so that throwing them a bone was enough to get the constitution passed.

1) No age discrimination. You'd no longer need to be 18 to vote, 25 to run for the House, 30 to run for the Senate, or 35 to be President. I'd add a line saying "All people are legally equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other factors for which they are not responsible"Okay

2) Voters would be allowed to vote for as many candidates as they liked per office. No ballot would be allowed to offer less than three candidates per office. Election Day would become Election Week. Voting machines would have to be tested prior to use, and any company engaging in voting shenanigans would be prohibited from having their equipment used in future elections - ever.I don't care for the three-candidate minimum & voting for as many as you like. I do like the testing of voting machines.

3) Get rid of the Electoral College. It was a retarded idea even 230 years ago. Presidents should be elected by direct popular vote.Okay

4) Eliminate the concept of "states" being represented in Congress. Only the people would be represented. A UNIcameral legislature would run the show, with voting districts being allowed to cross state lines. The ratio of a district's perimeter to its area would be restricted in order to make Gerrymandering more difficult.No to the unicameral legislature & no to eliminating states in Congress (wouldn't help that much anyway), although I do like the perimeter to area check on gerrymandering, that's clever.

5) Supreme Court justices would be elected directly by the people and would serve limited terms. The President could only appoint replacements in the event of death or retirement, and these replacements would be temporary.No

6) Presidents and legislators would serve one-year or two-year terms. They may be elected any number of times, but anyone who serves more than five consecutive years would have to take a five-year break before running again.No. You have been reading Roman history, though, haven't you?

7) Congress would be prohibited from delegating legislative powers to other elements of government, like the EPA or FCC (we have sooooo many violations of the First Amendment thanks to the FCC...)Congress should have the guts to legislate instead of delegating

8) No law, nor any part of the Constitution, would be allowed to define the meaning of a word. That is a job for Oxford.Uhm, okay

9) I'd get rid of the parts about the Post Office and Patent Office. We have UPS and shit now.United Patent Service? Keep the Patent Office

10) The salaries of legislators would be decided by the voters that they represent, not by the legislators themselves.Yes

11) Ownership of animals would count as slavery. All former "owners" of animals would now be considered their legal guardians. They could only be adopted, not bought or sold. (hunting would still be OK though)Oh, please

12) Federal funding may not be given to any business or private non-profit organization except in exchange for goods or services rendered to the government.Yes

13) Any federal, state, or local law may be overturned by popular majority vote of the residents of that state/city/whatever.You can do this where I live, on the state and local level, anyway

14) The national debt may not be increased except during a state of war or other emergency.I wouldn't be so rigid

15) No bill may be longer than 1000 words.Absolutely
:p

One thing, people are always proposing term limits for Senators & Representatives, and getting those implemented at the state and local levels. Here's why I think term limits are a bad idea:

1) I don't want amateurs running my government. The world is too complicated to have a bunch of newbies coming in every couple of years and having to learn everything all over.

2) A term-limited legislator doesn't have any incentive to cooperate with his or her colleagues, to compromise. If a member of Congress knows his or her term is done in six years, why bother? Just be a one-issue representative, win those elections, collect that government salary, the hell with getting along and perhaps serving the interests of the people as a whole. You think Congress isn't civil now?

3) You already have a perfectly good way of limiting the number of terms a legislator serves, it's called an election. Oh, the incumbent has tons of money and power and a party machine? So get off your ass and organize! It's been done and it can be done, you just have to do something!

:cool:

Wait until we crank up the tariff on all those pistachio nuts and baba ganouj and hummus shipments, you'll see, they'll fold up like a cheap rug!

I hadn't noticed that until you mentioned it. . .

But if you thought oil prices were bad now, wait until you pay the 50% tariff rate.

As for me, I would only make two changes to the Constitution.

Amendment XXVIII: The term "person" in the Constitution shall not be construed to include any non-corporeal, non-sentient entity, including but not limited to corporations, trusts, and joint commercial ventures.

Amendment XXIX: Being necessary for the creation of fair and impartial elections, all voting districts must be designed to maximize contiguity and partisan competitiveness within said district. No district shall be created solely for the purpose of, nor with the effect of, ensuring partisan dominance by any party within the district.

Amendment XXVIII: The term "person" in the Constitution shall not be construed to include any non-corporeal, non-sentient entity, including but not limited to corporations, trusts, and joint commercial ventures.

Amendment XXIX: Being necessary for the creation of fair and impartial elections, all voting districts must be designed to maximize contiguity and partisan competitiveness within said district. No district shall be created solely for the purpose of, nor with the effect of, ensuring partisan dominance by any party within the district.
Amendment XXX (or maybe a change to XXIX): Voting districts may be redrawn only once after each census.

Amendment XXX (or maybe a change to XXIX): Voting districts may be redrawn only once after each census.

I'd accept that addendum.

if i were going to try to rewrite the constitution, i would start from much more basic propositions than just rewriting the stuff at the top. for example, most states don't have any real social existence. basic social and political boundaries should be redrawn from the bottom up, with a mechanism to redraw them again when necessary. and all this centralized power was clearly a bad idea - especially in light of recent events. time to restructure.

Then you have no say over OUR Constitution. A rather comforting thought. I'd have to kill you though if you tried the crap you mentioned. At least the "replace it" part.
I could go for an amendment limiting Congressional terms, gerrymandering, and allowing more initiative from the People on the federal level.

Well, the OP didn't tell anyone not an American to piss off, so there. Honestly, what is so special about the Constitution that it has to be completely immune from any kind of criticism or change - no matter of whether it could possibly improve the quality of American government?

Let's face facts. The Constitution was an awesome document for its time, but it's nowhere near perfect. Hell, we had to write ten patches for the damn thing immediately after it was ratified, and 27 amendment later, we still have an Electoral College against all common sense.

Here are the things that I would change:

1) No age discrimination. You'd no longer need to be 18 to vote, 25 to run for the House, 30 to run for the Senate, or 35 to be President. I'd add a line saying "All people are legally equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other factors for which they are not responsible"

2) Voters would be allowed to vote for as many candidates as they liked per office. No ballot would be allowed to offer less than three candidates per office. Election Day would become Election Week. Voting machines would have to be tested prior to use, and any company engaging in voting shenanigans would be prohibited from having their equipment used in future elections - ever.

3) Get rid of the Electoral College. It was a retarded idea even 230 years ago. Presidents should be elected by direct popular vote.

4) Eliminate the concept of "states" being represented in Congress. Only the people would be represented. A UNIcameral legislature would run the show, with voting districts being allowed to cross state lines. The ratio of a district's perimeter to its area would be restricted in order to make Gerrymandering more difficult.

5) Supreme Court justices would be elected directly by the people and would serve limited terms. The President could only appoint replacements in the event of death or retirement, and these replacements would be temporary.

6) Presidents and legislators would serve one-year or two-year terms. They may be elected any number of times, but anyone who serves more than five consecutive years would have to take a five-year break before running again.

7) Congress would be prohibited from delegating legislative powers to other elements of government, like the EPA or FCC (we have sooooo many violations of the First Amendment thanks to the FCC...)

8) No law, nor any part of the Constitution, would be allowed to define the meaning of a word. That is a job for Oxford.

9) I'd get rid of the parts about the Post Office and Patent Office. We have UPS and shit now.

10) The salaries of legislators would be decided by the voters that they represent, not by the legislators themselves.

11) Ownership of animals would count as slavery. All former "owners" of animals would now be considered their legal guardians. They could only be adopted, not bought or sold. (hunting would still be OK though)

12) Federal funding may not be given to any business or private non-profit organization except in exchange for goods or services rendered to the government.

13) Any federal, state, or local law may be overturned by popular majority vote of the residents of that state/city/whatever.

14) The national debt may not be increased except during a state of war or other emergency.

15) No bill may be longer than 1000 words.

1) The age requirements aren't really a big problem anyway. The discrimination is against the young and inexperienced. I wouldn't want 13 year-olds voting in our elections nor would I want a 16 year old president. The entire reason why these were put in place was simply to make sure that we would have saner elections.

2) Unlimited voting seems a bit odd to me. I suppose it might promote a multi-party system. Doesn't really matter too much to me, the 2 party system isn't too bad for the most part because those 2 parties are designed to be catch-alls.

3) I don't have a problem with getting rid of the electoral college. It wasn't a stupid idea 230 years ago though when all of those states were afraid of being screwed over and when people didn't directly vote for presidents anyway.

4) I think that this would create problems with state representation though, we already have states and those states do have their own interests due to the nature of their governing and such. 2 houses isn't necessary but isn't bad either, it was necessary at the time and not in too much need of replacement.

5) I don't like direct election of supreme court justices. It would make it more political than ever. The current system allows for justices to decide without having to worry too much about politics which is how it should be as they only interpret the constitution, they don't legislate. I mean, if we elect the supreme court members then we would see entire campaigns based upon finding gay rights constitutional or throwing out Roe v. Wade and I don't like that one bit.

6) No, too many elections. They need time to get their job done. If there is a sudden economic down turn early in a president's term then he would be thrown out without it being his fault. As well, the saturation of elections would make more people annoyed with the mudslinging. Isn't once every 4 years enough? I don't want to hear about flip-floppers and poor military service every time I look at the television which is exactly what would happen under this system. There need to be breaks between elections.

7) Eh... the senate sucks enough at getting what it currently has to do done. It is not like we couldn't make the decisions of the FCC an issue, but for congress to make all of the decisions that the FCC and other organizations do would be difficult for them to pull off.

8) Not really a big problem that I know about. I mean, I know that in France the government defines the dictionary. At the very least I have not been bitten by the word laws. At the very least we do not need a part of the constitution to address this, it is not a big deal just a waste.

9) The patent office is necessary and the postal service might be useful under government control for finding letter bombs and such. At the very least we need the patent office, without patents we do not have good incentive to invent. I don't think that the constitution is really necessary to deal with this though.

10) So far legislators have not really abused this too much. I can see your point but I would rather leave this up to a committee more than anything. Voters might not even have an idea what a fair wage would be for these people.

11) No, how the heck will we have agriculture under this law? Do you propose forcing veganism on the population or simply exporting all of our agriculture to other nations? The constitution should not do this and it would have too many economic repercussions to deal with. Animals are property and that is that, they are not humans and do not need to be given that status by a human government.

12) I don't think that the constitution needs to have this, I think this is a matter of what the people want. One could argue that school vouchers is the government giving money to private organizations for a service to the people and not really the government. The constitution should mostly have laws about rights and the structure of government, not whether or not the government can perform certain actions that do not threaten the rights of individuals.

13) NO, this leads to nullification problems which were solved years ago by the Civil war, we should NOT open that can of worms again. The federal government is dominant over the state government and state over local except in cases where one is overstepping its boundaries.

14) Who declares a state of emergency? I think this just leads to too much bureacracy that would be problematic. Deficit spending is a legitimate way to improve the economy and it should not be too harshly discouraged although it should also not be overdone.

15) Yeah, I think that some bills are too long as well. I dunno, I would like it if a line item veto was constitutional but that could later be amended in there.

Honestly, what is so special about the Constitution that it has to be completely immune from any kind of criticism or change - no matter of whether it could possibly improve the quality of American government?

certain usians have an annoying habit of treating "the founding fathers" as gods and their works as holy writ.

certain usians have an annoying habit of treating "the founding fathers" as gods and their works as holy writ.
Or rather, their own peculiar and incorrect interpretation of the ff's works and out of context text-bites as holy writ.

Here are the things that I would change:

1) No age discrimination. You'd no longer need to be 18 to vote, 25 to run for the House, 30 to run for the Senate, or 35 to be President. I'd add a line saying "All people are legally equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other factors for which they are not responsible"

In other words, an 8 yo can run for President, Senator, Representative? You know it took an amendment for 18yos to vote right? I wouldn't want to have a 16yo Senator for he knows nothing of the world. The ages that we have now for Senate and House and President was designed so those who were elected to do the nation's business would know what is going on and able to understand it. A 10 yo would not.

2) Voters would be allowed to vote for as many candidates as they liked per office.

Bad idea for a simple reason. No one will win a majority.

No ballot would be allowed to offer less than three candidates per office.

I guess you never seen a ballot then have you? No I guess not for you would know that in most races, there are more than 3 candidates running.

Election Day would become Election Week.

You are nuts.

3) Get rid of the Electoral College. It was a retarded idea even 230 years ago. Presidents should be elected by direct popular vote.

Apparently the founders don't think it was a retarded idea. Only a minority think its a retarded idea.

4) Eliminate the concept of "states" being represented in Congress. Only the people would be represented. A UNIcameral legislature would run the show, with voting districts being allowed to cross state lines. The ratio of a district's perimeter to its area would be restricted in order to make Gerrymandering more difficult.

I would love to see you try to pull this off for it isn't even possible for it to occur. Not to mention the states themselves will vote against it. This is a retarded idea and has no shot at ever being implemented by anyone.

5) Supreme Court justices would be elected directly by the people and would serve limited terms.

Bad idea. Why? You want the Supreme Court to be a popularity contest? You want cases to be decided by people who have to cater to the masses? If they don't do what you want them to do then you vote them out? Oh my God. Thank God that you are not incharge for I hate to see the State of the Judiciary being runned this way.

6) Presidents and legislators would serve one-year or two-year terms.

Nothing will get done if that is the case.

7) Congress would be prohibited from delegating legislative powers to other elements of government, like the EPA or FCC (we have sooooo many violations of the First Amendment thanks to the FCC...)

Congress can't run every aspect of Government. I hope you understand why? Judging by this post, I doubt you have any knowledge of just what the Government does.

8) No law, nor any part of the Constitution, would be allowed to define the meaning of a word. That is a job for Oxford.

Their job is to create laws and the Judiciary to interpret them. Sometimes the judge's decision is based on words or phrases in said law. You'll never be able to get rid of that.

9) I'd get rid of the parts about the Post Office and Patent Office. We have UPS and shit now.

Good luck. Why get rid of it?

10) The salaries of legislators would be decided by the voters that they represent, not by the legislators themselves.

I do like this idea but then....we are right back with corruption all over again.

11) Ownership of animals would count as slavery. All former "owners" of animals would now be considered their legal guardians. They could only be adopted, not bought or sold. (hunting would still be OK though)

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

12) Federal funding may not be given to any business or private non-profit organization except in exchange for goods or services rendered to the government.

You do realize that is the case now?

13) Any federal, state, or local law may be overturned by popular majority vote of the residents of that state/city/whatever.

Why not do away with legislators alltogether since you want the people to decide everything?

14) The national debt may not be increased except during a state of war or other emergency.

HAHAHA! Oh brother. This is impossible to do.

15) No bill may be longer than 1000 words.

What about Treaties?

I think you need to think this through more.

[QUOTE=Entropic Creation]The US constitution is indeed a great one – unfortunately the intent of it has been grossly twisted out of shape and manipulated to server political ends. Words are given new meanings and small clauses are used for the flimsiest justification well beyond the intent of the law. The federal government was supposed to be very limited in scope. As the years have gone by it has bloated up as politicians and bureaucrats have grown like bacteria in a cracked kitchen tile.

We do not need to scrap it and start again – if we tried that, we would have a century of lawyers niggling every word (the definition of “is”?) and in the end it would be so large and cumbersome no citizen would be able to read it before being asked to vote on it.

There are laws and regulations restricting everything you want to do – many of our ‘freedoms’ are just illusions. Bit by bit we have allowed the government to encroach into our lives until they have control over everything.

The federal government was meant to be restricted to only a few basic functions to keep it small and reduce its intrusion into the lives of the people. The states were supposed to retain most of the day to day governing of the people because local politics are more accountable to the constituents and can adapt to the individual situations better (of course will an apathetic citizenry it doesn’t really matter – there is very little oversight on politicians).

outstanding post!

could not agree with you more.

i will never vote for a dem or repub again...they have used the constitution as toilet paper imho,and they certainly do not represent me or my needs...they represent the special interest groups that got them elected,and will do anything to keep there power and wealth.

i will consider voting libertarian,if they change there tune on immigration.

Or rather, their own peculiar and incorrect interpretation of the ff's works and out of context text-bites as holy writ.

yeah, and i probably also should have mentioned that for some reason these god-fathers are veiwed as some sort of a hive mind.

1) No age discrimination. You'd no longer need to be 18 to vote, 25 to run for the House, 30 to run for the Senate, or 35 to be President. I'd add a line saying "All people are legally equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other factors for which they are not responsible"
I Disagree entirely. There is really no such thing as "age discrimination." As in oppisition to all other discriminatory stuctures: you are forceably mobile. You cant remain in the same "Discriminated" class wether you want to or not. I actually think 18 is slightly young to vote (Or to go to war).
2) Voters would be allowed to vote for as many candidates as they liked per office. No ballot would be allowed to offer lessthan three candidates per office. Election Day would become Election Week. Voting machines would have to be tested prior to use, and any company engaging in voting shenanigans would be prohibited from having theirequipment used in future elections - ever.
This doesnt seem applicable. And the "less than three" provision is so regressively beuracratic it would cause more problems than solutions. I agree with the part about voting machines though.
3) Get rid of the Electoral College. It was a retarded idea even 230 years ago. Presidents should be elected by direct popular vote.
Applicable. As well as possible to accomplish under the constitution.
4) Eliminate the concept of "states" being represented in Congress. Only the people would be represented. A UNIcameral legislature would run the show, with voting districts being allowed to cross state lines. The ratio of a district's perimeter to its area would be restricted in order to make Gerrymandering more difficult.
I will smite you. No really though, Im not sure you understand what you are saying. This would not be an amendment, it would be a complete overhaul. That, and I think its a terrible idea. I like the fact that federal power is limited and set by the states, I think it makes it all the harder for abuses to occur.
5) Supreme Court justices would be elected directly by the people and would serve limited terms. The President could only appoint replacements in the event of death or retirement, and these replacements would be temporary.
You arent serious are you? This is one of the greatest institutions of the United States! No other nation in the world could pull off policy change on the level and speed that the SCOTUS can. This would effectively ruin it.
6) Presidents and legislators would serve one-year or two-year terms. They may be elected any number of times, but anyone who serves more than five consecutive years would have to take a five-year break before running again.
this just seems pointless.
7) Congress would be prohibited from delegating legislative powers to other elements of government, like the EPA or FCC (we have sooooo many violations of the First Amendment thanks to the FCC...)
I actually mostly agree with you here.
8) No law, nor any part of the Constitution, would be allowed to define the meaning of a word. That is a job for Oxford.
That would destroy judicial process as we know it.
9) I'd get rid of the parts about the Post Office and Patent Office. We have UPS and shit now.
I agree with the dissolution of the post office. And, the patent ofice needs to be cleaned out.
10) The salaries of legislators would be decided by the voters that they represent, not by the legislators themselves.
agreeable
11) Ownership of animals would count as slavery. All former "owners" of animals would now be considered their legal guardians. They could only be adopted, not bought or sold. (hunting would still be OK though)
What? Not only does that make very little sense, it would be a monster to administrate.
12) Federal funding may not be given to any business or private non-profit organization except in exchange for goods or services rendered to the government.
You're back on my good side :D
13) Any federal, state, or local law may be overturned by popular majority vote of the residents of that state/city/whatever.
We can actually do that now, but it's fairly difficult.
14) The national debt may not be increased except during a state of war or other emergency.
That's not even feasible.
15) No bill may be longer than 1000 words.
Disagree.

if i were going to try to rewrite the constitution, i would start from much more basic propositions than just rewriting the stuff at the top. for example, most states don't have any real social existence. basic social and political boundaries should be redrawn from the bottom up, with a mechanism to redraw them again when necessary. and all this centralized power was clearly a bad idea - especially in light of recent events. time to restructure.

Out of everything said, I find this the most acceptable. Holding a series of plebiscites to create more culturally accurate states and then decentralizing the government drastically would be quite appropriate. I'm about 2.54cm away from wondering if we actually need a Federal government, but I think that's another issue.

...because the Constitution could only be replaced by the mechanisms within it (calling a convention, getting huge margins of support in both houses etc)....

I think consensus is not longer possible because in practice, most Americans no longer believe in States' Rights and thus you have a bitter tug of war of one faction attempting to impose its view of what is right and good on the other at the federal level. Most people want their idea about how things should be imposed from on high. The few who disagree are marginalized and ignored because they are principled and their votes are meaningless because they decide their vote on ideas rather than candidate charisma and spin.

It would be impossible to craft a new constitution that did not drift into these treacherous waters and thus be doomed to an endless hung jury. You may possibly be able to amend a few things (though even there I have doubts) but it is impossible to write a new one from the ground up.

So you're stuck with it. Hopefully neither side hits upon a way of empowering a _de facto_ new constitution along these lines by bold and abusive interpretations of cardinal laws and rights rammed through by a totally partisan court.

(Please please let no more supreme justices die or retire while Bush is in power please. Say what you will about Scalia at least he's not a lapdog for the Republican executive like Alito and Roberts. If somehow either party got a solid majority of loyal political hacks in there, that would be the end of the Constitution within a few terms of that advent.)

We should have a total new government, under me.

...because the Constitution could only be replaced by the mechanisms within it (calling a convention, getting huge margins of support in both houses etc)....

why? the constitution wasn't ratified under the rules of the articles it replaced, so why should it be any different this time?

why? the constitution wasn't ratified under the rules of the articles it replaced, so why should it be any different this time?
Because by ratifying the Constitution the states agreed to abide by the rules embodied in it. I don't have a copy of the Articles handy but I imagine there weren't any such rules in it.

Well, the OP didn't tell anyone not an American to piss off, so there. Honestly, what is so special about the Constitution that it has to be completely immune from any kind of criticism or change - no matter of whether it could possibly improve the quality of American government?

It gives stability. The British didn't want their voting districts redrawn because they thought that the process was open to corruption. Texas proves them right. They had them because they'd always had them. We're the same with our constitution. It's really hard to change, so it gives us something resembling stability in a world where you can be ruled by a Clinton one day and a Bush the next.

As Constitutions go it's not that great, and if I were entrusted to build one from scratch I think I'd do a few things differently, like give domestic executive power to the Speaker of the House (our closest equivalent to a Prime Minister) and State and Foreign affairs to the President.

But all in all it's like tearing down a house because you'd like it to be a foot further away from the road. Too much trouble for such a small change.

you must be using some even stranger than usual definition of "pure democracy" in order for it to apply to the government under the articles. so please define your term.

and i still don't see how you can at the same time get nothing done, and change the laws to whatever you want. perhaps you should try explaining it to me.

Its easy... pass a law ....then call a town meeting to pass another law that cotridicts or disables the law you have passed . nothing is accomplished and thats what you get from mob rule or democracy. Everyone is not an expert in everything and at times yoy get a very stupid majority doing very stupid and or evil things that infringe on the rights of the minority .

Town meetings and the like were at one time the form of government in most states under the articles of confederation...pure democracy or rule by the people DID NOT WORK . It was unwieldly and it was very hard to accomplish anything . Thats one of the major reasons for a representative Democracy .
The whole American experiance of that time was one big experiment .
read the writings of Jefferson the read the writings of Thomas Paine...Paine is NUTS ...but he had his adherents and helped form some of the basic concepts of liberty that were included in the constitution..but can you ever imagine trying to run a country using his beliefs and his methods ?
Thats whats so great about this particular piece of paper..when you read the writtings of its signers and those that contributed to it and realise the diversity of thought and the balance that was struck..well its not only unique but a once in a lifetime document formed by a very unique gathering of some of the finest minds of the time .
And it is not a ridgid piece of work..it changes with the times and the people and the attitudes they reflect. By Ammendments .
The BILL OF RIGHTS ..how can you beat it for a guarantee of personal liberty ?

You a covenent with the people ...The Constitution .
You have The bill of rights that Guarantees the Constitution to each individual ...and GIVES the people a SWORD to protect the covenant from those that would abuse it..the second ammendment .

You feel it should be changed ? Its called VOTING ...thats what you need to do to get it changed..You cant just tear it up and write another unless you are willing to die or to kill a bunch of angry Americans with weapons.
Poll Americans to see if they feel the Constitution should be changed or ..rewritten....if you get more than 10 percent I will be amazed .


http://www.ushistory.org/paine/
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/
http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/
http://www.masshist.org/adams_editorial/
http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html
http://www.yale.edu/franklinpapers/

Read the works and papres of these fellows ..the actual framers of the constitution.

William Pierce My own character I shall not attempt to draw, but leave those who may chose to speculate on it, to consider it in any light that their fancy or imagination may depict. I am conscious of having discharged my duty as a Soldier through the course of the late revolution with honor and propriety; and my services in Congress and the Convention were bestowed with the best intention towards the interest of Georgia, and towards the general welfare of the Confederacy. I possess ambition, and it was that, and the flattering opinion which some of my Friends had of me, that gave me a seat in the wisest Council in the World, and furnished me with an opportunity of giving these short Sketches of the Characters who composed it.

Abraham Baldwin Mr. Baldwin is a Gentleman of superior abilities, and joins in a public debate with great art and eloquence. Having laid the foundation of a compleat classical education at Harvard College, he pursues every other study with ease. Mr. Baldwin is about 38 years of age.

Richard Bassett Mr. Bassett is a religious enthusiast, lately turned Methodist, and serves his Country because it is the will of the people that he should do so. He is a Man of plain sense, and has modesty enough to hold his Tongue. He is a Gentlemanly Man, and is in high estimation among the Methodists. Mr. Bassett is about 36 years old.

Gunning Bedford Mr. Bedford was educated for the Bar, and in his profession, I am told, has merit. He is a bold and nervous Speaker, and has a very commanding and striking manner; -but he is warm and impetuous in his temper, and precipitate in his judgment. Mr. Bedford is about 32 years old, and very corpulant.

John Blair Mr. Blair is one of the most respectable Men in Virginia, both on account of his Family as well as fortune. He is one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in Virginia, and acknowledged to have a very extensive knowledge of the Laws. Mr. Blair is, however, no Orator, but his good sense, and most excellent principles, compensate for other deficiencies. He is about 50 years of age.

William Blount Mr. Blount is a character strongly marked for integrity and honor. He has been twice a Member of Congress, and in that office discharged his duty with ability and faithfulness. He is no Speaker, nor does he possess any of those talents that make Men shine; -he is plain, honest, and sincere. Mr. Blount is about 36 years of age.

David Brearly Mr. Brearly is a man of good, rather than of brilliant parts. He is a Judge of the Supreme Court of New Jersey and is very much in the esteem of the people. As an Orator he has little to boast of, but as a Man he has every virtue to recommend him. Mr. Brearly is about 40 years of age.

Jacob Broom Mr. Broom is a plain good Man, with some abilities but nothing to render him conspicuous. He is silent in public, but chearful and conversable in private. He is about 35 years old.

Pierce Butler Mr. Butler is a character much respected for the many excellent virtues which he possesses. But as a politician or an Orator, he has no pretentions to either. He is a Gentleman of fortune, and takes rank among the first in South Carolina. He has been appointed to Congress, and is now a Member of the Legislature of South Carolina. Mr. Butler is about 40 years of age; an Irishman by birth.

Daniel Carroll Mr. Carroll is a Man of large fortune, and influence in his State. He possesses plain good sense, and is in the full confidence of his Countrymen. This Gentleman is about [blank] years of age.

George Clymer Mr. Clymer is a Lawyer of some abilities; -he is a respectable man, and much esteemed. Mr. Clymer is about 40 years old.

William Richardson Davie Mr. Davey is a Lawyer of some eminence in his State. He is said to have a good classical education, and is a Gentleman of considerable literary talents. He was silent in the Convention, but his opinion was always respected. Mr. Davey is about 30 years of age.

Jonathan Dayton Capt. Dayton is a young Gentleman of talents, with an ambition to exert them. He possesses a good education and reading; he speaks well, and seems desirous of improving himself in Oratory. There is an impetuosity in his temper that is injurious to him; but there is an honest rectitude about him that makes him a valuable Member of Society, and secures to him the esteem of all good Men. He is about 30 years old, served with me as a Brother Aid to General Sullivan in the Western expedition of '79.

John Dickinson Mr. Dickinson has been famed through all America, for his Farmers Letters; he is a Scholar, and said to be a Man of very extensive information. When I saw him in the Convention I was induced to pay the greatest attention to him whenever he spoke. I had often heard that he was a great Orator, but I found him an indifferent Speaker. With an affected air of wisdom he labors to produce a trifle, -his language is irregular and incorrect, -his flourishes (for he sometimes attempts them), are like expiring flames, they just shew themselves and go out; -no traces of them are left on the mind to clear or animate it. He is, however, a good writer and will ever be considered one of the most important characters in the United States. He is about 55 years old, and was bred a Quaker.

Oliver Ellsworth Mr. Elsworth is a Judge of the Supreme Court in Connecticut, -he is a Gentleman of a clear, deep, and copious understanding; eloquent, and connected in public debate; and always attentive to his duty. He is very happy in a reply, and choice in selecting such parts of his adversary's arguments as he finds make the strongest impressions, -in order to take off the force of them, so as to admit the power of his own. Mr. Elsworth is about 37 years of age, a Man much respected for his integrity, and venerated for his abilities.

William Few Mr. Few possesses a strong natural Genius, and from application has acquired some knowledge of legal matters; -he practices at the bar of Georgia, and speaks tolerably well in the Legislature. He has been twice a Member of Congress, and served in that capacity with fidelity to his State, and honor to himself. Mr. Few is about 35 years of age.

Thomas Fitzsimmons Mr. Fitzsimmons is a Merchant of considerable talents, and speaks very well I am told, in the Legislature of Pennsylvania. He is about 40 years old.

Benjamin Franklin Dr. Franklin is well known to be the greatest phylosopher of the present age;-all the operation of nature he seems to understand - the very heavens obey him, and the Clouds yield up their Lightning to be imprisoned in his rod. But what claim he has to the politician, posterity must determine. It is certain that he does not shine much in public Council, -he is no Speaker, nor does he seem to let politics engage his attention. He is, however, a most extraordinary Man, and tells a story in a style more engaging than anything I ever heard. Let his Biographer finish his character. He is 82 years old, and possesses an activity of mind equal to a youth of 25 years of age.

Elbridge Gerry Mr. Gerry's character is marked for integrity and perseverance. He is a hesitating and laborious speaker; -possesses a great degree of confidence and goes extensively into all subjects that he speaks on, without respect to elegance or flower of diction. He is connected and sometimes clear in his arguments, conceives well, and cherishes as his first virtue, a love for his Country. Mr. Gerry is very much of a Gentleman in his principles and manners; -he has been engaged in the mercantile line and is a Man of property. He is about 37 years of age.

Nicholas Gilman Mr. Gilman is modest, genteel, and sensible. There is nothing brilliant or striking in his character, but there is something respectable and worthy in the Man. -- about 30 years of age. From Massachusetts.

Nathaniel Gorham Mr. Gorham is a Merchant in Boston, high in reputation, and much in the esteem of his Country-men. He is a Man of very good sense, but not much improved in his education. He is eloquent and easy in public debate, but has nothing fashionable or elegant in his style; -all he aims at is to convince, and where he fails it never is from his auditors not understanding him, for no Man is more perspicuous and full. He has been President of Congress, and three years a Member of that Body. Mr. Gorham is about 46 years of age, rather lusty, and has an agreeable and pleasing manner.

Alexander Hamilton Colo. Hamilton is deservedly celebrated for his talents. He is a practitioner of the Law, and reputed to be a finished Scholar. To a clear and strong judgment he unites the ornaments of fancy, and whilst he is able, convincing, and engaging in his eloquence the Heart and Head sympathize in approving him. Yet there is something too feeble in his voice to be equal to the strains of oratory; -it is my opinion that he is rather a convincing Speaker, than a blazing Orator. Colo. Hamilton requires time to think, -he enquires into every part of his subject with the searchings of philosophy, and when he comes forward he comes highly charged with interesting matter, there is no skimming over the surface of a subject with him, he must sink to the bottom to see what foundation it rests on. -His language is not always equal, sometimes didactic like Bolingbroke's and at others light and tripping like Stern's. His eloquence is not so defusive as to trifle with the senses, but he rambles just enough to strike and keep up the attention. He is about 33 years old, of small stature, and lean. His manners are tinctured with stiffness, and sometimes with a degree of vanity that is highly disagreeable.

William Churchill Houston Mr. Houston is an Attorney at Law, and has been a Member of Congress for the State of Georgia. He is a Gentleman of Family, and was educated in England. As to his legal or political knowledge he has very little to boast of. Nature seems to have done more for his corporeal than mental powers. His Person is striking, but his mind very little improved with useful or elegant knowledge. He has none of the talents requisite for the Orator, but in public debate is confused and irregular. Mr. Houston is about 30 years of age of an amiable and sweet temper, and of good and honorable principles.

Jared Ingersoll Mr. Ingersoll is a very able Attorney, and possesses a clear legal understanding. He is well educated in the Classic's, and is a Man of very extensive reading. Mr. Ingersol speaks well, and comprehends his subject fully. There is a modesty in his character that keeps him back. He is about 36 years old.

Daniel Jenifer of St Thomas Mr. Jenifer is a Gentleman of fortune in Maryland; -he is always in good humour, and never fails to make his company pleased with him. He sits silent in the Senate, and seems to be conscious that he is no politcian. From his long continuance in single life, no doubt but he has made the vow of celibacy. He speaks warmly of the Ladies notwithstanding. Mr. Jenifer is about 55 years of Age, and once served as an Aid de Camp to Major Genl. Lee.

William Samuel Johnson Dr. Johnson is a character much celebrated for his legal knowledge; he is said to be one of the first classics in America, and certainly possesses a very strong and enlightened understanding. As an Orator in my opinion, there is nothing in him that warrants the high reputation which he has for public speaking. There is something in the tone of his voice not pleasing to the Ear, - but he is eloquent and clear, - always abounding with information and instruction. He was once employed as an Agent for the State of Connecticut to state her claims to certain landed territory before the British House of Commons; this Office he discharged with so much dignity, and made such an ingenious display of his powers, that he laid the foundation of a reputation which will probably last much longer than his own life. Dr. Johnson is about sixty years of age, possesses the manners of a Gentleman, and engages the Hearts of Men by the sweetness of his temper, and that affectionate style of address with which he accosts his acquaintance.

Rufus King Mr. King is a Man much distinguished for his eloquence and great parliamentary talents. He was educated in Massachusetts, and is said to have good classical as well as legal knowledge. He has served for three years in the Congress of the United States with great and deserved applause, and is at this time high in the confidence and approbation of his Country-men. This Gentleman is about thirty-three years of age, about five feet ten Inches high, well formed, an handsome face, with a strong expressive Eye, and a sweet high toned voice. In his public speaking there is something peculiarly strong and rich in his expression, clear and convincing in his arguments, rapid and irresistible at times in his eloquence but he is not always equal. His action is natural, swimming, and graceful, but there is a rudeness of manner sometimes accompanying it. But take him tout en semble, he may with propriety be ranked among the Luminaries of the present Age.

John Langdon Mr. Langdon is a Man of considerable fortune, possesses a liberal mind, and a good plain understanding. -- about 40 years old.

John Lansing Mr. Lansing is a practising Attorney at Albany, and Mayor of that Corporation. He has a hesitation in his speech, that will prevent his being an Orator of any eminence; -his legal knowledge I am told is not extensive, nor his education a good one. He is however a Man of good sense, plain in his manners, and sincere in his friendships. He is about 32 years of age.

William Livingston Governor Livingston is confessedly a Man of the first rate talents, but he appears to me rather to indulge a sportiveness of wit, than a strength of thinking. He is however equal to anything, from the extensiveness of his education and genius. His writings teem with satyr and a neatness of style. But he is no Orator, and seems little acquainted with the guiles of policy. He is about 60 years old, and remarkably healthy.

James Madison Mr. Maddison is a character who has long been in public life; and what is very remarkable every Person seems to acknowledge his greatness. He blends together the profound politician, with the Scholar. In the management of every great question he evidently took the lead in the Convention, and tho' he cannot be called an Orator, he is a most agreeable, eloquent, and convincing Speaker. From a spirit of industry and application which he possesses in a most eminent degree, he always comes forward the best informed Man of any point in debate. The affairs of the United States, he perhaps, has the most correct knowledge of, of any Man in the Union. He has been twice a Member of Congress, and was always thought one of the ablest Members that ever sat in that Council. Mr. Maddison is about 37 years of age, a Gentleman of great modesty, --with a remarkable sweet temper. He is easy and unreserved among his acquaintance, and has a most agreable style of conversation.

Alexander Martin Mr. Martin was lately Governor of North Carolina, which office he filled with credit. He is a Man of sense, and undoubtedly is a good politician, but he is not formed to shine in public debate, being no Speaker. Mr. Martin was once a Colonel in the American Army, but proved unfit for the field. He is about 40 years of age.

Luther Martin Mr. Martin was educated for the Bar, and is Attorney general for the State of Maryland. This Gentleman possesses a good deal of information, but he has a very bad delivery, and so extremely prolix, that he never speaks without tiring the patience of all who hear him. He is about 34 years of age.

George Mason Mr. Mason is a Gentleman of remarkable strong powers, and possesses a clear and copious understanding. He is able and convincing in debate, steady and firm in his principles, and undoubtedly one of the best politicians in America. Mr. Mason is about 60 years old, with a fine strong constitution.

James McClurg Mr. Mc.Lurg is a learned physician, but having never appeared before in public life his character as a politician is not sufficiently known. He attempted once or twice to speak, but with no great success. It is certain that he has a foundation of learning, on which, if he pleases, he may erect a character of high renown. The Doctor is about 38 years of age, a Gentleman of great respectability, and of a fair and unblemished character.

James McHenry Mr. Mc.Henry was bred a physician, but he afterwards turned Soldier and acted as Aid to Genl. Washington and the Marquis de la Fayette. He is a Man of specious Wents, with nothing of genious to improve them. As a politician there is nothing remarkable in him, nor has he any of the graces of the Orator. He is however, a very respectable young Gentleman, and deserves the honor which his Country has bestowed on him. Mr. Mc.Henry is about 32 years of age.

Thomas Mifflin General Mifflin is well known for the activity of his mind, and the brilliancy of his parts. He is well informed and a graceful Speaker. The General is about 40 years of age, and a very handsome man.

Gouverneur Morris Mr. Governeur Morris is one of those Genius's in whom every species of talents combine to render him conspicuous and flourishing in public debate: -He winds through all the mazes of rhetoric, and throws around him such a glare that he charms, captivates, and leads away the senses of all who hear him. With an infinite stretch of fancy he brings to view things when he is engaged in deep argumentation, that render all the labor of reasoning easy and pleasing. But with all these powers he is fickle and inconstant, -never pursuing one train of thinking - nor ever regular. He has gone through a very extensive course of reading, and is acquainted with all the sciences. No Man has more wit, -nor can any one engage the attention more than Mr. Morris. He was bred to the Law, but I am told he disliked the profession, and turned merchant. He is engaged in some great mercantile matters with his namesake Mr. Robt. Morris. This Gentleman is about 38 years old, he has been unfortunate in losing one of his Legs, and getting all the flesh taken off his right arm by a scald, when a youth.

Robert Morris Robert Morris is a merchant of great eminence and wealth; an able Financier, and a worthy Patriot. He has an understanding equal to any public object, and possesses an energy of mind that few Men can boast of. Although he is not learned, yet he is as great as those who are. I am told that when he speaks in the Assembly of Pennsylvania, that he bears down all before him. What could have been his reason for not Speaking in the Convention I know not - but he never once spoke on any point. This Gentleman is about 50 years old.

William Paterson Mr. Patterson is one of those kind of Men whose powers break in upon you, and create wonder and astonishment. He is a Man of great modesty, with looks that bespeak talents of no great extent-but he is a Classic, a Lawyer, and an Orator; -and of a disposition so favorable to his advancement that every one seemed ready to exalt him with their praises. He is very happy in the choice of time and manner of engaging in a debate, and never speaks but when he understands his subject well. This Gentleman is about 34 ys. of age, of a very low stature.

Charles Pinckney Mr. Charles Pinckney is a young Gentleman of the most promising talents. He is, altho' only 24 ys. of age, in possession of a very great variety of knowledge. Government, Law, History and Phylosophy are his favorite studies, but he is intimately acquainted with every species of polite learning, and has a spirit of application and industry beyond most Men. He speaks with great neatness and perspicuity, and treats every subject as fully, without running into prolixity, as it requires. He has been a Member of Congress, and served in that Body with ability and eclat.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Mr. Chs Cotesworth Pinckney is a Gentleman of Family and fortune in his own State. He has received the advantage of a liberal education, and possesses a very extensive degree of legal knowledge. When warm in a debate he sometimes speaks well, -but he is generally considered an indifferent Orator. Mr. Pinckney was an Officer of high rank in the American army, and served with great reputation through the War. He is now about 40 years of age.

Edmund Randolph Mr. Randolph is Governor of Virginia, -a young Gentleman in whom unite all the accomplishments of the Scholar, and the States-man. He came forward with the postulate, or first principles, on which the Convention acted, and he supported them with a force of eloquence and reasoning that did him great honor. He has a most harmonious voice, a fine person and striking manner. Mr. Randolph is about 32 years of age.

George Read Mr. Read is a Lawyer and a Judge: -his legal abilities are said to be very great, but his powers of Oratory are fatiguing and tiresome to the last degree; -his voice is feeble, and his articulation so bad that few can have patience to attend to him. He is a very good Man, and bears an amiable character with those who know him. Mr. Read is about 50, of a low stature, and a weak constitution.

John Rutledge Mr. Rutledge is one of those characters who was highly mounted at the commencement of the late revolution; -his reputation in the first Congress gave him a distinguished rank among the American Worthies. He was bred to the Law, and now acts as one of the Chancellors of South Carolina. This Gentleman is much famed in his own State as an Orator, but in my opinion he is too rapid in his public speaking to be denominated an agreeable Orator. He is undoubtedly a man of abilities, and a Gentleman of distinction and fortune. Mr. Rutledge was once Governor of South Carolina. He is about 48 years of age.

Roger Sherman Mr. Sherman exhibits the oddest shaped character I ever remember to have met with. He is awkward, unmeaning, and unaccountably strange in his manner. But in his train of thinking there is something regular, deep and comprehensive; yet the oddity of his address, the vulgarisms that accompany his public speaking, and that strange New England cant which runs through his public as well as his private speaking make everything that is connected with him grotesque and laughable: -and yet he deserves infinite praise -no Man has a better Heart or a clearer Head. If he cannot embellish he can furnish thoughts that are wise and useful. He is an able politician, and extremely artful in accomplishing any particular object; -it is remarked that he seldom fails. I am told he sits on the Bench in Connecticut, and is very correct in the discharge of his Judicial functions. In the early part of his life he was a Shoe-maker; -but despising the lowness of his condition, he turned Almanack maker, and so progressed upwards to a Judge. He has been several years a Member of Congress, and discharged the duties of Office with honor and credit to himself, and advantage to the State he represented. He is about 60.

Richard Dobbs Spaight Mr. Spaight is a worthy Man, of some abilities, and fortune: Without possessing a Genius to render him brilliant, he is able to discharge any public trust that his Country may repose in him. He is about 31 years of age.

Caleb Strong Mr. Strong is a lawyer of some eminence, -he has received a liberal education, and has good connections to recommend him. As a Speaker he is feeble, and without confidence. This Gentn. is about thirty five years of age, and greatly in the esteem of his Colleagues.

George Washington Genl. Washington is well known as the Commander in chief of the late American Army. Having conducted these states to independence and peace, he now appears to assist in framing a Government to make the People happy. Like Gustavus Vasa, he may be said to be the deliverer of his Country; -like Peter the Great he appears as the politician and the States-man; and like Cincinnatus he returned to his farm perfectly contented with being only a plain Citizen, after enjoying the highest honor of the Confederacy, -and now only seeks for the approbation of his Country-men by being virtuous and useful. The General was conducted to the Chair as President of the Convention by the unanimous voice of its Members. He is in the 52d. year of his age.

Hugh Williamson Mr. Williamson is a Gentleman of education and talents. He enters freely into public debate from his close attention to most subjects, but he is no Orator. There is a great degree of good humour and pleasantry in his character; and in his manners there is a strong trait of the Gentleman. He is about 48 years of age.

James Wilson Mr. Wilson ranks among the foremost in legal and political knowledge. He has joined to a fine genius all that can set him off and show him to advantage. He is well acquainted with Man, and understands all the passions that influence him. Government seems to have been his peculiar Study, all the political institutions of the World he knows in detail, and can trace the causes and effects of every revolution from the earliest stages of the Greecian connnonwealth down to the present time. No man is more clear, copious, and comprehensive than Mr. Wilson, yet he is no great Orator. He draws the attention not by the charm of his eloquence, but by the force of his reasoning. He is about 45 years old.

George Wythe Mr. Wythe is the famous Professor of Law at the University of William and Mary. He is confessedly one of the most learned legal Characters of the present age. From his close attention to the study of general learning he has acquired a compleat knowledge of the dead languages and all the sciences. He is remarked for his exemplary life, and universally esteemed for his good principles. No Man it is said understands the history of Government better than Mr. Wythe, -nor any one who understands the fluctuating conditions to which all societies are liable better than he does, yet from his too favorable opinion of Men, he is no great politician. He is a neat and pleasing Speaker, and a most correct and able Writer. Mr. Wythe is about 55 years of age.

Robert Yates Mr. Yates is said to be an able Judge. He is a Man of great legal abilities, but not distinguished as an Orator. Some of his Enemies say he is an anti-federal Man, but I discovered no such disposition in him. He is about 45 years old, and enjoys a great share of health.

That's legally. But since when have wartime presidents cared about that sort of legality?
Compared to say, Abraham Lincoln who had bloody war raging within a few miles of his office, Bush is not a wartime president.

Compared to say, Abraham Lincoln who had bloody war raging within a few miles of his office, Bush is not a wartime president.

In reality, he is a wartime president.

It gives stability. The British didn't want their voting districts redrawn because they thought that the process was open to corruption. Texas proves them right. They had them because they'd always had them. We're the same with our constitution. It's really hard to change, so it gives us something resembling stability in a world where you can be ruled by a Clinton one day and a Bush the next.

And did the Constitution prevent that? No. I think there is a balance between being difficult to change and being able to cope with changes and development in long term popular opinion. The US is too close to the being difficult to change, and the UK (with a partially written constitution as acts of Parliamant) too close to the other.

As Constitutions go it's not that great, and if I were entrusted to build one from scratch I think I'd do a few things differently, like give domestic executive power to the Speaker of the House (our closest equivalent to a Prime Minister) and State and Foreign affairs to the President.

But all in all it's like tearing down a house because you'd like it to be a foot further away from the road. Too much trouble for such a small change.

Well then, try amending it :p. However, I agree replacing it would be extreme when a simple amendment would be satisfactory. In my previous post I was hung over and irritable, so don't take me too seriously.

And did the Constitution prevent that? No. I think there is a balance between being difficult to change and being able to cope with changes and development in long term popular opinion. The US is too close to the being difficult to change, and the UK (with a partially written constitution as acts of Parliamant) too close to the other.

I thought it was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. I might be wrong but if I am right then yes, the constitution did deal with it. The US is very difficult to change but if it were too easy then we would have all sorts of crazy amendments, instead of 27 or something we would have 69 or 129 with many of those amendments simply being ones to take down previously made amendments. I think that our resistance to change is really not a bad thing, and although not great the stability has helped us a lot.

Because by ratifying the Constitution the states agreed to abide by the rules embodied in it. I don't have a copy of the Articles handy but I imagine there weren't any such rules in it.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Its easy... pass a law ....then call a town meeting to pass another law that cotridicts or disables the law you have passed . nothing is accomplished and thats what you get from mob rule or democracy. Everyone is not an expert in everything and at times yoy get a very stupid majority doing very stupid and or evil things that infringe on the rights of the minority .

Town meetings and the like were at one time the form of government in most states under the articles of confederation...pure democracy or rule by the people DID NOT WORK . It was unwieldly and it was very hard to accomplish anything . Thats one of the major reasons for a representative Democracy .
The whole American experiance of that time was one big experiment .
read the writings of Jefferson the read the writings of Thomas Paine...Paine is NUTS ...but he had his adherents and helped form some of the basic concepts of liberty that were included in the constitution..but can you ever imagine trying to run a country using his beliefs and his methods ?
Thats whats so great about this particular piece of paper..when you read the writtings of its signers and those that contributed to it and realise the diversity of thought and the balance that was struck..well its not only unique but a once in a lifetime document formed by a very unique gathering of some of the finest minds of the time .
And it is not a ridgid piece of work..it changes with the times and the people and the attitudes they reflect. By Ammendments .
The BILL OF RIGHTS ..how can you beat it for a guarantee of personal liberty ?

You a covenent with the people ...The Constitution .
You have The bill of rights that Guarantees the Constitution to each individual ...and GIVES the people a SWORD to protect the covenant from those that would abuse it..the second ammendment .

You feel it should be changed ? Its called VOTING ...thats what you need to do to get it changed..You cant just tear it up and write another unless you are willing to die or to kill a bunch of angry Americans with weapons.
Poll Americans to see if they feel the Constitution should be changed or ..rewritten....if you get more than 10 percent I will be amazed .


http://www.ushistory.org/paine/
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/
http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/
http://www.masshist.org/adams_editorial/
http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html
http://www.yale.edu/franklinpapers/

Read the works and papres of these fellows ..the actual framers of the constitution.
Seeing as how the great states of Pennsylvania, Virginia and Rhode Island ran themselves pretty well despite having relatively liberal constitutions I think your point borders on being incorrect.

I thought it was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. I might be wrong but if I am right then yes, the constitution did deal with it. The US is very difficult to change but if it were too easy then we would have all sorts of crazy amendments, instead of 27 or something we would have 69 or 129 with many of those amendments simply being ones to take down previously made amendments. I think that our resistance to change is really not a bad thing, and although not great the stability has helped us a lot.

Nope, the Court let Delay get away with this, AND whenever he wanted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/24/TravisCountyDistricts.png/300px-TravisCountyDistricts.png
Tell me that ain't gerrymandering.

Because by ratifying the Constitution the states agreed to abide by the rules embodied in it. I don't have a copy of the Articles handy but I imagine there weren't any such rules in it.

Well, it could be ratified as an amendment to the current constitution that would promulgate the theoretical next.

Let's face facts. The Constitution was an awesome document for its time, but it's nowhere near perfect. Hell, we had to write ten patches for the damn thing immediately after it was ratified, and 27 amendment later, we still have an Electoral College against all common sense.Oh, I'll get on the Electoral College on #3, trust me.

Here are the things that I would change:

1) No age discrimination. You'd no longer need to be 18 to vote, 25 to run for the House, 30 to run for the Senate, or 35 to be President. I'd add a line saying "All people are legally equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other factors for which they are not responsible"Huh. That's an interesting one right there. So, a five-year-old can take his parents to court for not giving him a cookie? Don't laugh. "All people are legally equal regarless of … age." That's super.

2) Voters would be allowed to vote for as many candidates as they liked per office. No ballot would be allowed to offer less than three candidates per office. Election Day would become Election Week. Voting machines would have to be tested prior to use, and any company engaging in voting shenanigans would be prohibited from having their equipment used in future elections - ever.Oh, Lord. So, if there are a lack of candidates for an office (it happens), what then? Because only two people want to run, do you: Not have the election? Force someone to run? Keep the incumbant? Dumb. "Election Day would become Election Week" I actually kinda like that. I live in Oregon, we have 100% vote-by-mail. It's like Election Month. Not such a bad idea in that sense. Voting Machines are tested before use. It's just that the testers sometimes have ulterior motives.

3) Get rid of the Electoral College. It was a retarded idea even 230 years ago. Presidents should be elected by direct popular vote.Okay! When you do that, I'll run on the platform of bombing Alaska into the Stone Age! As long as I win a simple majority in the 25 most populous cities of the US, I'll win a simple majority of the US. So, Fuck Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Deleware. Too small, no one cares. No. This is a fucking terrible idea. People who support getting rid of the electoral college no nothing of how this country is run. By the way, you know what country DID elect its chancellor by popular vote? The Weimar Republic! Do you know what happened there? Adolf-fucking-Hitler. He won the chacellorship by a single vote. Nice.

4) Eliminate the concept of "states" being represented in Congress. Only the people would be represented. A UNIcameral legislature would run the show, with voting districts being allowed to cross state lines. The ratio of a district's perimeter to its area would be restricted in order to make Gerrymandering more difficult.You've suffered brain damage, haven't you? The point of a Bicameral legislature is so that fewer laws are passed. I remember when I was in High School in California, and we visited the state capitol. We got to meet our state senator, and I asked him why we didn't have a unicameral legislature like Nebraska. He told us that we wouldn't believe the sheer volumes that the Calif. Senate receives from the Calif. Assembly, which they don't approve, and vice versa. If the US had a Unicameral legislature, the President would have an insane amount of laws to pass or veto. Also, "voting districts being allowed to cross state lines" God, help us. Have you missed the part about us being a republic, with 50 sovereign states? You're proposing that we go to a unitary system, like France, where states are no more than administrative tools to help doll out services. If anything, we should repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Look it up.

5) Supreme Court justices would be elected directly by the people and would serve limited terms. The President could only appoint replacements in the event of death or retirement, and these replacements would be temporary.Oh, HELL no. Did you seriously smoke like three rocks of crack before you wrote this? No. No-no. The Supreme Court is political enough as it is to become a justice. But, once you're in it's a politics-free zone. It's nice. "If ye seeketh justice, rise and come nigh" is what they call, not "If ye voted for us in the last election, we will find in your favor."

6) Presidents and legislators would serve one-year or two-year terms. They may be elected any number of times, but anyone who serves more than five consecutive years would have to take a five-year break before running again.Someone already mentioned this, but Rome, eh? How long do you think before the Senate declares Bush "Primus Inter Pares, Imperator Cæsar Rex"? But in all seriousness, too much voting. Every two years is enough. But I like no term limits.

7) Congress would be prohibited from delegating legislative powers to other elements of government, like the EPA or FCC (we have sooooo many violations of the First Amendment thanks to the FCC...)It is prohibited in the Constitution. But no one cares as it stands now, so why would they in the future? I think that the government shouldn't regulate the environment or airwaves anyway. But that's me.

8) No law, nor any part of the Constitution, would be allowed to define the meaning of a word. That is a job for Oxford.One: They don't do that anyway. It's like prohibiting someone from turning into a goat. Two: Oxford? What the hell are you talking about? Oxford is Commonwealth English. The accepted standard for American English is Merriam-Webster.

9) I'd get rid of the parts about the Post Office and Patent Office. We have UPS and shit now.Let's think about USPS vs. UPS. To mail a letter USPS from Oregon to New York is 39¢. To mail a letter UPS from Oregon to New York is $13.57. So your idea is to get rid of the cheapest and most efficient postal service on earth. The figures came from their websites, ZIP codes used were 97401 and 12345. Look it up. And the patent office is to protect intellectual property! Why in God's Good Name would you want to get rid of protection of property?

10) The salaries of legislators would be decided by the voters that they represent, not by the legislators themselves.Too hard. Sorry. It's too complicated a process to even dream of implementing.

11) Ownership of animals would count as slavery. All former "owners" of animals would now be considered their legal guardians. They could only be adopted, not bought or sold. (hunting would still be OK though)Why? Why the unholy turd-fucking hell would you even suggest this? Animals are property. Live with it. That's where we get our hamburger.

12) Federal funding may not be given to any business or private non-profit organization except in exchange for goods or services rendered to the government.Someone said earlier that this is already the case. That's not true. If I understand correctly, you're talking about subsidization. Which is a good thing to be rid of.

13) Any federal, state, or local law may be overturned by popular majority vote of the residents of that state/city/whatever.So… Why even have the federal government? WAIT! Aren't you the same one who wanted congressional districts to surpass state boundaries? DOUBLE-U TEE EFF? I don't know how to even start to address that.

14) The national debt may not be increased except during a state of war or other emergency.Okay, but what if the Government wants to make an investment that's sure to bring in more money than they spent? Like the Grand Coulee, Hoover, Shasta, and Tennesee Valley Dams? You have to spend money to make money.

15) No bill may be longer than 1000 words.That is simply the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Ever. If you don't know why, you're stupid too.

No need to be rude Kapsilan.

One idea has been touched on and passed around in here that I would like to adress. That no one believes in States Rights anymore. I think this may be one of the most important points in the degredation of the constitution. It seems the only states that can even claim themselves sovereign, are the ones that are willing to turn down some federal money.

Drinking and Driving laws (In the mutually exclusice sense) are almost completely owned by the Federal Highway money. If states refuse to meet the federal demands they recieve no funds. I think this is a horribly manipulative practice, and one that should eventually be challenged in court.

Okay! When you do that, I'll run on the platform of bombing Alaska into the Stone Age! As long as I win a simple majority in the 25 most populous cities of the US, I'll win a simple majority of the US. So, Fuck Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Deleware. Too small, no one cares. No. This is a fucking terrible idea. People who support getting rid of the electoral college no nothing of how this country is run. By the way, you know what country DID elect its chancellor by popular vote? The Weimar Republic! Do you know what happened there? Adolf-fucking-Hitler. He won the chacellorship by a single vote. Nice.

As opposed to now where you only have to campaign in 7 or so battleground states because the others are locks? Or only 14ish states to get a majority in the college itself.


Oh, and the Weimar republic didn't elect its chancellor. He was appointed by the President (Hindenburg).