NationStates Jolt Archive

The constitution of the United States is over 200 years old. Its the longest active form of government in the world, and it has worked extremely well. But how would you tweak it?

I say change the presidency to a 1 term limit with a 6 year span. But give the people the right to vote him out of power every three years.

Do away with the senate and instead, have the governors of the states meet in washington during the year and vote on issues the same as the senate does. (The senate works fine but the senators live in washington.....who better to know what the states REALLY want than the governors themselves?)

Wouldn't want to live in your country, that's for certain.

I'd make Presidential signing statements unconstitutional and I'd get rid of the electoral college.

You should abolish the Second Amendment.

You should abolish the Second Amendment.

I don't think it should be abolished, but it should be clarified.

1. One term limit for presidents.

2. Term limits for Congresspeople.

3. Clarify the 2nd Amendment, saying that it it the peoples' right to keep and bear arms.

4. Add an amendment to guarantee a explicit right to privacy.

Theres prolly more, but I'm far too lazy to do any heavy thinking on a saturday.

Edit: Ohh, I thought of something else! I'd abolish the income tax and replace it with some sort of national sales tax.

I don't think it should be abolished, but it should be clarified.
ok then, change the wording to 'all private guns are banned.'

The constitution of the United States is over 200 years old. Its the longest active form of government in the world, and it has worked extremely well. But how would you tweak it?

I say change the presidency to a 1 term limit with a 6 year span. But give the people the right to vote him out of power every three years.

Do away with the senate and instead, have the governors of the states meet in washington during the year and vote on issues the same as the senate does. (The senate works fine but the senators live in washington.....who better to know what the states REALLY want than the governors themselves?)

I would have it written on acid-free paper and get it laminated. :)

Get rid of the Electoral College.

Clarify the 2nd Admendment: Americans have the right to bear arms if and only if England invades.

Add the Right to Tacos.

The constitution of the United States is over 200 years old. Its the longest active form of government in the world, and it has worked extremely well. But how would you tweak it?


I wouldn't.

I say change the presidency to a 1 term limit with a 6 year span. But give the people the right to vote him out of power every three years.

Our way is just fine. Vote of confidence leaves replacment to the whim of people. Good presidents could be tossed for simply bad economic times.

Do away with the senate and instead, have the governors of the states meet in washington during the year and vote on issues the same as the senate does. (The senate works fine but the senators live in washington.....who better to know what the states REALLY want than the governors themselves?)

Life fifedoms? No bad approach. The governor has enough dealling with state laws and then get involved with federal laws. Pretty soon the bigger profitable states will be dictating to the rest.

Our setup is fine. The governor is picked to run the state and the senators to represent the state.

Get rid of the Electoral College.

Clarify the 2nd Admendment: Americans have the right to bear arms if and only if England invades.

Add the Right to Tacos.With either red or green chile.

Wouldn't want to live in your country, that's for certain.

I'd make Presidential signing statements unconstitutional and I'd get rid of the electoral college.

Then how to deal with the smaller states being made insignifcant to do the amount of votes?

With either red or green chile.

Green chile is anti-american!

i would strengthen the barrier between federal and state governments. i would clarify what rights are left to the states (without being too specific so as to leave room for future issues) and limit the federal governments ability to coerce states into passing the laws it wants (like the 21 year drinking age)

I would have it written on acid-free paper and get it laminated. :)

To your ass?

Then how to deal with the smaller states being made insignifcant to do the amount of votes?
Surely if it's a national election, the States votes are irrelevant?

A straight forward poll of the American electorate, one person, one vote, would seem far more sensible at a Federal level. State politics can be left to State Elections.

Then how to deal with the smaller states being made insignifcant to do the amount of votes?

Right now, populations of states is already irrelevant in the electoral college--the competitiveness of the state is the only relevant factor. No one spent any time in Montana or Rhode Island in 2004, and they're low population, and the only reason they went to California or Texas was to raise money. None of those states were in play, so they got ignored. If anything, getting rid of the electoral college would increase the likelihood that those states would get some play, since votes are votes, no matter where they come from.

Green chile is anti-american!

It is the rightr of every American to be Anti-American.

It is the rightr of every American to be Anti-American.
Besides, wouldn't the red chile be communist? The green is the environmental chile. ;)

Surely if it's a national election, the States votes are irrelevant?

A straight forward poll of the American electorate, one person, one vote, would seem far more sensible at a Federal level. State politics can be left to State Elections.

The problem with that is Federal money. Big states would get far more then little states since they would have more votes. Candidates spend next to no time in the smaller states.

The problem with that is Federal money. Big states would get far more then little states since they would have more votes. Candidates spend next to no time in the smaller states.
The Senate already protects against that issue. I'd leave that the same.

I'd add a Governor General. :D

Right now, populations of states is already irrelevant in the electoral college--the competitiveness of the state is the only relevant factor. No one spent any time in Montana or Rhode Island in 2004, and they're low population, and the only reason they went to California or Texas was to raise money. None of those states were in play, so they got ignored. If anything, getting rid of the electoral college would increase the likelihood that those states would get some play, since votes are votes, no matter where they come from.

No they are not.

Why do you think Elections are pretty well decided before California weighs in. The repubs know this state traditionally votes democratic so they put effort into the smaller states to offset it.

Besides, wouldn't the red chile be communist? The green is the environmental chile. ;)

Can't we genetically engineer a chile to be red, white, and blue? I would sell it as the Americhile. I would make millions.

To your ass?

Maybe we can have a copy tattooed there. :)

In a more serious light, I would not change a thing about the COnstitution. It isn't meant to be changed by any one person. I think it's the constant scrutiny and debate over it's interpretation that has allowed it to exist for so much longer than any of it's writers imagined to be possible and to remain one of the most relevant documents ever written.

Return election of Senators to the state legislators, thereby restoring its function of providing the states representation on the Federal level and being a body of accumulated political wisdom.

Add right to privacy to the first amendment.

Make it so that the people control the pay rate of their Congressmen and the states control the Sentors pay. Don't like what the bastard is doing? Cut his pay to twenty dollars a week and see how quickly he falls back in line.

The Electoral College existed for one reason: the American Public, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, had no reliable method of gaining enough information about a candidate to fully vote for him or her. That is not the case. It is useless. Dump the piece of shit.

Also, to those non-Americans who would deprive us of our right to bear arms(I'm looking at you Philosophy and Posi): Nay, I say. Nay. Instead, clarify the damned 2nd Amendment in modern terms to explicitly state that private citizens have a right to own weaponry. (And yes, limit it. No one needs a bloody tank.)

ok then, change the wording to 'all private guns are banned.'

Yeah, because the government is so damned responsible......:rolleyes:

My thought: Re-word the 2nd. The right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to provide for an individuals defense of life and property, shall not be infringed upon nor laws made restricting thereof.

I would make a lot of changes, some of them directly to the framework advanced by the Constitution, others added to ensure that better frameworks are adopted in areas where the Constitution currently does not play a role.

1. Abolish the Electoral College; Presidents should be appointed by Congress.
2. Triple the size of the Senate and elect it through party-list PR on a national basis every four years.
3. Elect the House through single transferable vote, state by state; larger states would divide themselves into several constituencies.
4. Add the Equal Rights Amendment, and include sexual orientation and gender identity in it.
5. Abolish the veto power; the President's sole power should be leading the executive branch.
6. Permit constructive votes of no confidence; if both houses of Congress vote to replace the existing President with a specific alternative, that alternative should take the office and the existing President should be ousted. In accordance with (1), this should replace presidential elections.
7. Every six months, a popular "vote of no confidence" should be held; if a majority votes to oust the existing Congress, new elections should be held within a month.
8. Separation of church and state should be made explicit, as should the right to privacy and the right to choose.
9. An inalienable right to vote for all adult citizens should be added.
10. Torture should be explicitly prohibited.
11. Appoint judges for nine-year terms, with a single term limit. Appoint a single judge every year.
12. Alter the amendment process; instead of sending it to the states for ratification, a referendum should be held, needing 60% approval before coming into effect.
13. The death penalty should be abolished explicitly within the Constitution.
14. An explicit right to gun ownership and self-defense for all adult non-felons should be added.

Its the longest active form of government in the world

Is this true? Do you mean the governemtn style or the government ruled by a document or an unchanged system of seperation of powers?

Wasn't the constitition based on the seperation of powers in place that the British has? Does this make the british government longer? (Just to pick one).

How much does something have to change before it is a different form of governmetn?

The Equal Rights Amendment? definitely.
Something explicit about centralizing the education system under a federal department? yep.
Requiring state governors and legislatures to appoint county positions? Oh yeah
Restricting suffrage to the top 10% on IQ tests? You bet your ass.
My thought: Re-word the 2nd. The right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to provide for an individuals defense of life and property, shall not be infringed upon nor laws made restricting thereof.
I like it. People need gund to protect themselves from criminals.

The Equal Rights Amendment? definitely.
Something explicit about centralizing the education system under a federal department? yep.
Requiring state governors and legislatures to appoint county positions? Oh yeah
Restricting suffrage to the top 10% on IQ tests? You bet your ass.

I like it. People need gund to protect themselves from criminals.

Wow. Top 10% on IQ tests. I guess this blows away the black vote...

Oh yeah, and having said all that, I think this guy has some good ideas:
http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4141

Two of these caught my eye as a bad idea.

1. Abolish the Electoral College; Presidents should be appointed by Congress.

5. Abolish the veto power; the President's sole power should be leading the executive branch.


Do you really want a President who is beholden to Congress for his office and powerbase? Look at all the issues stemming from the Presidents ability to select new judges for the Supreme Court. Bad whoodoo, my opinion.

The power of the President to be able to veto any law that Congress comes up with is needed as a check on the powers of Congress. No veto power means you have Congressional pinheads making whatever laws they damned well please, and we have enough useless laws on the books as it is.

Its' the whole checks and balances thing. The two offices have to be a check on the other to prevent abuses of the system by one or th eother.

Wow. Top 10% on IQ tests. I guess this blows away the black vote...
It’s true that impoverished people generally score lower on IQ tests, which is why we need a central education system, in order to distribute funds evenly amongst schools nation wide. No potential will then be waited if everyone can get a good education.

It’s true that impoverished people generally score lower on IQ tests, which is why we need a central education system, in order to distribute funds evenly amongst schools nation wide. No potential will then be waited if everyone can get a good education.

Not that simple. Even with a central education system, there are still factors like home environment which will disproportionately disenfranchise the poor.

No they are not.

Why do you think Elections are pretty well decided before California weighs in. The repubs know this state traditionally votes democratic so they put effort into the smaller states to offset it.
You've actually made my point for me. California would actually get more attention in this scenario, because it would be worth trying to drive as many California Republicans to the polls as possible, because every vote would count. And in small states in the east, there'd be a similar push--you'd get advertising to media markets and visits by politicians who wouldn't normally spend time there because the election wouldn't be decided until all votes were counted. Hawaii would matter in a close election. So would Alaska. So would Montana. And so would California and Texas and all the others, because in the end, you'd need the most raw votes to win, not the collection of individual states to get there.

Wow. Top 10% on IQ tests. I guess this blows away the black vote...

And you claim to not be a racist. :rolleyes:

Not that simple. Even with a central education system, there are still factors like home environment which will disproportionately disenfranchise the poor.
I think the most intelligent people will be able to plainly see that when society is healthy, the individual thrives as well, and would approve aggressive anti-poverty measures that we would have now if not for the stupid.

Do you really want a President who is beholden to Congress for his office and powerbase?

Absolutely. It is much better than a virtual autocrat, like the current entity in the White House.

Look at all the issues stemming from the Presidents ability to select new judges for the Supreme Court. Bad whoodoo, my opinion.

The power of the President to be able to veto any law that Congress comes up with is needed as a check on the powers of Congress. No veto power means you have Congressional pinheads making whatever laws they damned well please, and we have enough useless laws on the books as it is.

They are elected by the people, and held accountable by the people. That is their "check."

Its' the whole checks and balances thing. The two offices have to be a check on the other to prevent abuses of the system by one or th eother.

That is a purpose better served by a bicameral parliament, which, you will note, I retained.

And you claim to not be a racist. :rolleyes:
Hate to break it to you chief, but currently, the poor don’t do as well on intelligence tests due to not having access to good schools.
Kimchi is a conservative. That doesn’t automatically make him a racist, but it does make him incapable of seeing society as anything but what it is now.

I think the most intelligent people will be able to plainly see that when society is healthy, the individual thrives as well, and would approve aggressive anti-poverty measures that we would have now if not for the stupid.

Nonsense. Give people an exclusive right to rule and they will rule for themselves; not necessarily because they are devoid of altruism, but because they are themselves and not others, and when considering the needs of the population they will conceive of their needs and generalize them.

They are elected by the people, and held accountable by the people. That is their "check."
The people have proven that they don't know what's good for them.

Hate to break it to you chief, but currently, the poor don’t do as well on intelligence tests due to not having access to good schools.
Kimchi is a conservative. That doesn’t automatically make him a racist, but it does make him incapable of seeing society as anything but what it is now.He didn't say poor. He said black. The two are not synonymous. He's a racist.

And you claim to not be a racist. :rolleyes:
Isn't it true that Black people do less well on those tests?

This is not to say they are less intelligent, but more likely social and economical factors contribute against them?

It’s true that impoverished people generally score lower on IQ tests, which is why we need a central education system, in order to distribute funds evenly amongst schools nation wide. No potential will then be waited if everyone can get a good education.

Say a school in Poorville has a leaking roof and needs to rent metal detectors at the gates to stop pupils bringing in knives or whatever, that aswell as having to pay for teachers and supplies. While a school in Richburg does not need these things and can consentrate its spending on teachers, and hell, even the odd treat. It's a negative feedback loop, and it's unfair, but the poorer school will need a lot more money than the rich one.

Also, restricting sufferage to 10% is just plain suicidal. The 90% would have your asses in the Guillotines before you can say 'MENSA'.

Nonsense. Give people an exclusive right to rule and they will rule for themselves; not necessarily because they are devoid of altruism, but because they are themselves and not others, and when considering the needs of the population they will conceive of their needs and generalize them.
They are too stupid for that. The average person doesn’t care about the greater good.

The people have proven that they don't know what's good for them.

Really? How?

I find their track record almost always tends to be better than that of those who claim to know better.

Say a school in Poorville has a leaking roof and needs to rent metal detectors at the gates to stop pupils bringing in knives or whatever, that aswell as having to pay for teachers and supplies. While a school in Richburg does not need these things and can consentrate its spending on teachers, and hell, even the odd treat. It's a negative feedback loop, and it's unfair, but the poorer school will need a lot more money than the rich one.
Then they should get more money.
Also, restricting sufferage to 10% is just plain suicidal. The 90% would have your asses in the Guillotines before you can say 'MENSA'.
Not if they are better off than they were before, and they would be.

They are too stupid for that.

I don't think you understood my post. Please read it again.

The average person doesn’t care about the greater good.

And smarter people do?

Really? How?

I find their track record almost always tends to be better than that of those who claim to know better.
Bush?
Outlawing affirmative action?
Iraq?
Abortion?
Gay Marriage?
Welfare?
Taxes?

Can you really say, on all this issues, that the people have been right?

And smarter people do?
They are more likely to understand it, at least.

Bush?
Outlawing affirmative action?
Iraq?
Abortion?
Gay Marriage?
Welfare?
Taxes?

I said "better," not "perfect."

Then they should get more money.

Not if they are better off than they were before, and they would be.

No they wouldn't. They will be second class citizens in their country, and will have all the stigma attached to that. The 'intelligent' elite will rule as any other elite, by trampling on those beneath them, (and before you say that they are too intelligent to do that, it is exactly because they are intelligent that they are more likely to do it, because trampling on those beneath you for your own gain is actually a very smart thing to do). Intelligence is no demarker for morality or humanity.

They are more likely to understand it, at least.

They are just as unlikely to do so as anyone else. People have limited perspectives, and smart people are likely to have the perspectives of smart people - perspectives that will ensure that they do not properly consider the needs of non-smart people. They have as much power to delude themselves as anyone else, and can effectively defend their delusions with convincing argumentation. Because they are highly intelligent, they have the capability to generate arguments for just about anything; that is why so many intelligent people have been horribly wrong and have had proposals that have led to destruction.

Both Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises were intelligent people, yet if either was in fact right, the other was horribly wrong. Either way, you must grant that intelligence does not save us from grievous errors.

Plenty of intelligent people supported the Nazis, plenty of intelligent people have been religious fundamentalists, plenty of intelligent people oppose welfare and affirmative action (not that such opposition is comparable to the other two), and so on.

I'd make an amendment to ban "How would you change the const./govt?" threads.

And smarter people do?

The more informed do.

The more informed do.

Care about the greater good? Really?

Why does such care have anything to do with how informed a person is?

Wasn't the constitution based on the separation of powers in place that the British has? Does this make the British government longer? (Just to pick one).

*roles around on the floor laughing at the suggestion we have separation of the powers* :D The individual who essentially created the separation of the powers was Montesquieu, that’s not a very English name is it? Tis a French concept.:p

Our system of Government has evolved over many centuries rather than be set out in a codified constitution after a revolution like in the US hence we have no separation of the powers whatsoever.

The greatest example of this would have been the Lord Chancellor who was part of the Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive until the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (ironic considering we don’t actually have a constitution). Our executive is also directly taken from the legislature so in our system an MP (a Congresswoman/man) can become Prime Minister (President).

Do away with the senate and instead, have the governors of the states meet in washington during the year and vote on issues the same as the senate does. (The senate works fine but the senators live in washington.....who better to know what the states REALLY want than the governors themselves?)

“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which she/he shall be chosen”

So this is supposedly already addressed, I don’t believe further modification is necessary but rather greater enforcement of how they must be an “inhabitant”.

Anyhoo, I personally don’t think the Constitution requires change although I would never want one for the UK. The point of your constitution could be said to simply be inflexible due to what one could potentially perceive as your nation’s tendency towards minarchist views on Government.

By being inflexible it ensures the maximum amount of power rests with the people and the checks-and-balances do this well in my opinion while allowing for some change.

The one thing I might consider is making the Supreme Court’s role as “Guardians of the Constitution” more definitive and official or an alteration to the appellate system so that cases don’t take such a remarkably long time to reach the Court with an addition to prevent the SC conveniently setting its own agenda so that embarrassing government issues just happen to be delayed until after elections.

They are just as unlikely to do so as anyone else. People have limited perspectives, and smart people are likely to have the perspectives of smart people - perspectives that will ensure that they do not properly consider the needs of non-smart people. They have as much power to delude themselves as anyone else, and can effectively defend their delusions with convincing argumentation. Because they are highly intelligent, they have the capability to generate arguments for just about anything; that is why so many intelligent people have been horribly wrong and have had proposals that have led to destruction.

Both Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises were intelligent people, yet if either was in fact right, the other was horribly wrong. Either way, you must grant that intelligence does not save us from grievous errors.

Plenty of intelligent people supported the Nazis, plenty of intelligent people have been religious fundamentalists, plenty of intelligent people oppose welfare and affirmative action (not that such opposition is comparable to the other two), and so on.
What if the IQ tests were, let's say modified so that only those that cared about the greater good would score high enough?

What if the IQ tests were, let's say modified so that only those that cared about the greater good would score high enough?

Far too subjective, and most likely impossible.

And I made a lot of points that had nothing to do with the presence or lack of altruism in intelligent people.

Far too subjective, and most likely impossible.
But you could certainly weed out the sociopaths and other conservatives.
And I made a lot of points that had nothing to do with the presence or lack of altruism in intelligent people.
You did. I ignored them.

Also, to those non-Americans who would deprive us of our right to bear arms(I'm looking at you Philosophy and Posi): Nay, I say. Nay. Instead, clarify the damned 2nd Amendment in modern terms to explicitly state that private citizens have a right to own weaponry. (And yes, limit it. No one needs a bloody tank.)

Well, that's how the constitution sounds.

Besides, Canadians don't have a right to guns, but they are very common. Remember, you ca shoot them if they try to take them away.

Free pancakes for all!

But you could certainly weed out the sociopaths and other conservatives.

No, you couldn't. How do you catch liars?

No, you couldn't. How do you catch liars?
Disenfranchise them when their votes show they lied.

Disenfranchise them when their votes show they lied.

And who decides which votes indicate such?

He didn't say poor. He said black. The two are not synonymous. He's a racist.

Well, considering that historically it was shit like that that was pulled down south to keep blacks from voting, it doesn't necesarily me he is saying black's are inheirently(sp) less inteligent, but that they tend to be affect the most by such legislation.

As for what I would change:
1. Get rid of all term limits, if the people elect someone that fucks them over thats their own God damn fault and if the people who voted against the asshole don't like they need to try harder to energize their fellow citizens against him and if that be growing a pair and taking stands that might piss of the guys supporters so much the beter their his supporters stop playing to them and try and appeal to your own base so your something other than a lite version of the current people in charge.

2.Make it clear that while people have the right to own guns, they also have the obligation of being in a well regulated milita to do so.

Personal changes:

Weakening of term limits. I still favor them, if only to get Bush out of power, but I did think that Ike was a good guy, and deserved a third term (his health wasn't an issue by that time, and he represents the presidency not as politics but as policy. He got the job done, and did it well). For this, I would call for a mid-March election requiring a 65% vote to allow the president to run for a third term, with the regular election in November. 75% to allow candidacy for a fourth term. 100% thereafter.

Clarification of the 2nd Amendment. A right to bear semi-automatic firearms but not Javelin Anti-tank weaponry, weaponized Black Hawks, or a garage of Abraham tanks.

'Course, I think that we can't bother with trying to amend the Constitution. It's had a great run. But I follow Jefferson when he states that "A society should have a revolution every generation or so." It's simple. We reset everybody's mindset back to 1787, when the Constitution was proposed, and go from there. 'course, this will require that we don't reenact slavery, but the fundamental ideas, the ideas that people would recognize those smarter than themselves, needs to be reestablished. That currently exists only with the Federal Judiciary. Congress is far more wicked, and corrupt, than ourselves, the President is way dummer than many Americans, and elections have become mudslinging debacles.

Revolution!

And who decides which votes indicate such?
Someone who agrees with me, of course.

Someone who agrees with me, of course.

And when you are long dead?

Clarification of the 2nd Amendment. A right to bear semi-automatic firearms but not Javelin Anti-tank weaponry, weaponized Black Hawks, or a garage of Abraham tanks.

Adding a technical limitations to the Second Amendment would make it temporarily specific. For example, say the amendment specifically draws the lines at Weapon X, what happens when the criminals and rapists start wearing personalised force-fields in a generation or two that are impervious to Weapon X's attacks, and then citizens might feel they need Weapon Y to feel safe, even though today Weapon Y might be considered blatantly excessive.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, I personally believe that the Second Ammendment is one of the most troublesome paragraphs even written.

shred it

Call for greater direct democracy, an easier, more democratic, path to secession, and recallable leaders through referendum.

ok then, change the wording to 'all private guns are banned.'
Over my dead, firearm-carrying body!

I would make a lot of changes, some of them directly to the framework advanced by the Constitution, others added to ensure that better frameworks are adopted in areas where the Constitution currently does not play a role.


6. Permit constructive votes of no confidence; if both houses of Congress vote to replace the existing President with a specific alternative, that alternative should take the office and the existing President should be ousted. In accordance with (1), this should replace presidential elections.


actually that would go against separation of powers. I actually thought that same way when i made up this thread, i actually had it typed then changed it. the legislature cant have the power to vote out the executive. that would put the legislature in charge of the executive, and that might give it the power to control the judiciary as well.

Is this true? Do you mean the governemtn style or the government ruled by a document or an unchanged system of seperation of powers?

Wasn't the constitition based on the seperation of powers in place that the British has? Does this make the british government longer? (Just to pick one).

How much does something have to change before it is a different form of governmetn?

actually britain and america dont have similar versions of separation of powers nor federalism. they are the same in theory but when put into action they are polar opposites. and to clerify when i say oldest i mean to say that the constitution of the united states has governed the country longer than any other.

and to clerify when i say oldest i mean to say that the constitution of the united states has governed the country longer than any other.

Actually, the Massachussetts constitution is older than the US one

ok then, change the wording to 'all private guns are banned.'

That would be an insane thing to do. Do you think that this would stop criminals from getting guns.

Criminal: Well, over my career, I've killed twelve people, but I'd never use a gun, that's against the law.

Common sense says that no matter what you do, criminals will get guns. Why not give the people a right to protect themselves. Also, do you want to push that idea towards the hunting community? Why can't people have the right to hunt at least?

Start off by getting rid of the commerce and elastic clauses, enshrine private property rights and freedom of action, banning any confiscatory taxes (like payroll, income, and property taxes), banning interventionism in the economy, limiting the government's role to combatting force and fraud, make all tax rates equal (rebates are not out of the question), decentralize the judiciary to make it subject to peer review, jurisprudence and precedent, and make sure that it is made clear that the Constitution is a series of eternal principles not to be changed.

I would get rid of the "unusual" part of the 8th amendment. Surely the more unusual the punishment is, the less likely somebody will commit a crime. :)

I would clearly state the limits that should be imposed on the Federal government.

I would Constitutionally destroy the ability to create Federal welfare programs.

I wouldn't touch the Second Amendment (what's there to clarify? looks pretty clear to me--private ownership).

I would cripple direct taxes on income. It is institutionalized theft. The government's only role in society is to maintain order and protect property.

Oh, and I'd dump the Supreme Court's unconstitutional ability of Judicial Review.

Constitutionally remove the War Powers Act and abolish the ability to wage war without a formal declaration.

Keep the Electoral College.

More that I can't think of right now.

But I'm going to kill this thread becasue I'm a notorious thread killer. :(

1. Remove the electoral college. Elect presidents directly, with a runoff election should no candidate obtain 50% majority in general.

2. Remove the Senate.

3. Increase the size of the House to 1000. All members should be elected from proportional multi-representative districts. Add a 5 term limit on all members.

4. Clarify the 2nd Amendment.

5. Codify ballot access rights of smaller parties at a much smaller level than the current statutory definition.

6. Prohibit President from using military in a warmaking capacity w/o declaration of war.

7. Define term "persons," in order to end the legal fiction of corporate personhood.

8. Update search and seizure protections to include explicit protections from modern surveillance methods.

9. Codify explicit right for women to have an abortion.

10. Include Equal rights amendment.

The constitution of the United States is over 200 years old. Its the longest active form of government in the world, and it has worked extremely well.

What about this one (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sm.html)?

1. Outlaw all political parties; you get the same problems when the same party controls the government as when it's the same person, and with the U.S' system, the same party is easier.

2. Clarify the second amendment.

3. (Took this partly from some other person who posted in this thread) Abolish the electoral college, have the election go to whoever wins the most of the popular vote, and instead of term limits, the incumbant has to have at least 5% more of the popular vote then they did last time, or it goes to the second in line(this ends when the incumbant reaches 100%, as only the best president EVER could get a 100% approval rating).

4. Add "An act may only be outlawed if there is more (provable) harm then (provable) good caused by it".

What about this one (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sm.html)?

It has to be the same constitution to count as the same state. For example, the Fourth and Fifth Republics of France are technically different states, as they were governed by completely seperate constitutions.

San Marino's constitution has been fundamentally changed as recently as 1945.

3. (Took this partly from some other person who posted in this thread) Abolish the electoral college, have the election go to whoever wins the most of the popular vote, and instead of term limits, the incumbant has to have at least 5% more of the popular vote then they did last time, or it goes to the second in line(this ends when the incumbant reaches 100%, as only the best president EVER could get a 100% approval rating).

That's pretty good actually.

What if the IQ tests were, let's say modified so that only those that cared about the greater good would score high enough?

Wait, So you design a constitution that not only disenfranchises everyone who cannot pass your "IQ" test- but you also design that test toward political goals. This ends with an "elite" voting, who, if they are not a closed wealthy circuit in the beggining, will quickly become that way. You tell the people whats good for them, but they will never believe you.

There have been warlords more devoted to liberty than you.

Historically, this will end with you at the end of a rope.

You should abolish the Second Amendment.

Can't think of a better way to destroy America.

How would you change the Constitution


Who's constitution ?

The US one I would have it make me ruler for life and allow me 300 wives and a harem and some cool cars and stuff.

But the rest I'd leave alone ...I'd be kinda busy having sex to death .

Really? How?

I find their track record almost always tends to be better than that of those who claim to know better.

Yeah, stalin, hitler, and napoleon all knew what was best for their people.

actually that would go against separation of powers.

So? I don't see tyrannies sprouting in parliamentary democracies; why should we expect it to happen here?

the legislature cant have the power to vote out the executive. that would put the legislature in charge of the executive, and that might give it the power to control the judiciary as well.

The judiciary is already in part controlled by the legislature, and an executive independent of the legislature is too close to an autocrat.

I would make the House of Representatives the more powerful of the two Houses of Congress by giving them the right to ratify treaties, remove a President from office after the Senate votes on Articles of Impeachment, etc.
I would limit the terms of the members of the House to no more than two consecutive two year terms and no more than three two year terms overall; I'd limit the Senate to no more than two terms -- consecutive or otherwise -- and I'd reduce the Senate terms to four years. Plus, I would require all governments throughout the nation to implement a similar term limit system.
I would change the Electoral College to a system whereby each state's vote counts once for the vote for President ... and the state's vote goes by the decision of the popular vote. Whichever candidate wins the most states wins (rather than the possibility of losing 10 states, but winning the election because they win California, Texas, New York, etc).
I would repeal the Second Amendment.
I would implement a People's Veto system whereby the people can recall a piece of legislation approved by Congress or the President. In addition, I would also include in it the ability to recall lawmakers nationwide, including the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors against the People of the United States."
I would add an amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected status.

Well, I'm not am American so it's not really my business, but that makes me more objective and less partisan. Here goes:


Add amendments to the actual text of the Constitution.
Clarify the second amendment.
Clarify what is a federal and state power (produce a more specific list of Federal Powers in the constitution)
Elect the House of Representatives by 3-5 seat STV, and ban gerrymandering. Enforce the same for all state legislatures.
Elect the President by IRV, and all state Governors, Lt. Governors, Attorney Generals, etc by the same.
Elect the Senate by IRV, and change the Advice and Consent of the Senate to Advice and Consent of the House, and the more representative cha,ber of Congress.
Ballot initatives on the federal level.
Fixed terms for the Supreme Court, appointed 3 at a time for a 12 year nonrenewable term by a 2/3 House majority.
Right to an abortion, health and education.
Right not to be discriminated against.

well i think the main thing is to NOT have the attourny general be a presidential nominee.

i would limit the federal govenment to limiting the perogatives of states. the state that of cities and counties.

insitute a regeonal level to oversee interstate infrastructure with the mandate of keeping it environmentaly compatable.

forbid the outlawing of individual possession of small personal quantities of anything.

require that no action be taken by government against individual persons outside of the constitutional fraimwork without a congressional declaration of war.

strip the executive of most powers without one.

either eliminate political parties entirely or make it easier to form them and get them on the ballot and their candidates elected.

the american political scene suffers from an insufficiency of diversity.

remove all languge that favors any one belief, idiology, or economic presumption over another.

alow states and local communities totaly free reign in the formulating of their own constitutions, requiring on limits to protect all individual citizens.

forbid the declairing as secret anything not specificly authorized by congress to be other then when congress has aggreed to the existence of a state of war.

institute a negative income tax and a national, NOT corporate, health care system.

forbid any such then as emegration limits on unarmed civilians or the imposition of building codes on rural owner builders.

grant indiginous cultures greater autonomy or even preemptive local authority.

voter based bugiting.

recognize that no nation, especialy itself, has no other reason to exist as a government then to protect people from freezing, starving, or beating each other over the head, and the environment all wellbeing depends upon from the deprivations of short sighted carelessness.

forbid the defining of merrage by anyone other then it's participants or the legislating of 'morality' in general.

set as the highest priority the avoidance of causing harm and distruction.

forbid the granting of economic institutions and govenment itself, greater privelage then those held by individual private citizens.

forbid policy to place corporate, government, or economic interest ahead of environmantal and social.

enable courts, where they might contain evidence for the defence, to subpena any and all otherwise classified documents, other then those specificly detailing the nuts and bolts of military tecnology. and allow the judiciary to make determination even there other then in time of DECLAIRED war.

forbid any agency, arm, or affiliate, contractor or allie on domestic soil, to engauge in acts of extrodinary rendition. reinstate habeas corpus and make aboslutely central to the constitution as it is in any rational reality to the very concept of there being such things as constitutions.

=^^=
.../\...

make two-party systems unconstitutional.
oh, and legalize gay marriage.
and get rid of the second ammendment.