Thinking outside the box: Should the Dems introduce their own amendments

[geek tragedy]

to the Constitution?

I think two that should come up are:

1) Abolish the electoral college and completely overhaul the system of elections. Everyone agrees that elections are a mess, and the Electoral College divides this country, when it needs to be united;

2) A constitutional right to privacy. Make exceptions for things like regulation of drugs and medical procedures, but make it clear that what two adults do in their bedroom is nobody's damn business.

[phish420]

1. I like it

neither will pass in this congress, but I still like it. Pre-emptive strikes...using their own game against them. I like it.

[geek tragedy]

2. Make them explain why they oppose reforming elections and the right to

privacy.

Put those bastards on the defensive.

[bain_sidhe]

3. Even more basic: The right to vote.

Since the Reich wing cabal told us in Bush V. Gore that there is no right to vote in the constitution... don't you think there SHOULD be?

[geek tragedy]

4. I don't think Bush v. Gore said that.

The problem is that the system is too freaking complicated and unworkable.

[Dookus]

6. it was made clear

that there IS no right to vote, and to have that vote counted. I wrote my congressman and senators in december, 2000 asking them to introduce an amendment giving us that right.

[bain_sidhe]

22. Yes, it did, in reference to voting for President...

I quote from the per curiam opinion, Section B:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College."

[geek tragedy]

29. Ah, that just says what

the constitution already does.

Thanks for clarifying!

[Selatius]

5. It may actually work to hurt the Republicans

It'd make the Republicans look bad if they killed an amendment make to make the system more democratic (IRV and abolishing the College), and it'd make them look worse if they killed an amendment aimed at strengthening privacy against government. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone is going to advance these.

[Dookus]

7. abolishing the electoral college

is a non-starter. It will NEVER change.

[geek tragedy]

8. Make them vote against it then.

We need to cast it as a measure of

1) Establishing national unity--no more blue states and red states;

2) fixing the god awful mess that we call the election system.

[Dookus]

9. we can't make them vote on it...

it would never even get out of committee, and nobody cares about committee votes.

[geek tragedy]

10. Make it part of our platform then.

Promise that if we take over the Congress, we will bring it to a vote.

[JohnnyCougar]

11. BALANCE THE BUDGET!!!

Start a Constitutional Ammendment that you can't spend more than you take in. This will woo plenty of fiscal conservatives, and make Bush's administration look like a glaring joke.

[geek tragedy]

12. I was actually thinking about a Balanced Budget amendment.

It would probably have to include some sort of supermajority override for emergencies, but yeah that would work.

The Dems can run on a reform-based agenda by pushing these kinds of things.

Our own "Contract for America."

[ALago1]

34. I'm not a fan of the the BB amendment

In certain dire circumstances, it may prove necessary to run a deficit to get the economy going. What if we had this amendment during the depression? FDR wouldn't have been able to implement the New Deal.

However, running enormous debt to fund a war that is a sham is another story...

[geek tragedy]

35. That's why I would include a supermajority (2/3 or 3/4) override

provision.

[ozymandius]

13. Democrats can do anything they want now.

As long as they get behind any legislative proposals, claim ownership to it, make it known it is theirs and protect it from co-option - Democrats can assemble proposals exactly as they would have them. Further more, Dems can do so knowing that they would be hugely popular among their constituents.

Democrats should, nay - must, do exactly that. There is no chance of anything benefitting other than corporate interests getting passed. But that is not the issue. The issue is to define the message of what it means to be a Democrat: looking out for the little guy.

[trevize1138]

14. Only combat veterans can become President!

I like the idea of an ammendment to protect everyone's right to privacy. The constitution doesn't currently state, explicitly, that we have a right to that, but many Supreme Court decisions have set a precident for it which lead to decisions like Roe v. Wade. They stated the classic argument of the right being implied by the penumbras of the Constitution. That's all well-and-good, but it's too easy to argue that it's just legal/judicial hocus pocus because the law doesn't *explicity* state something.

But, as to my topic, why not an ammendment that says you can't be elected president or to any other higher office involved in making military decisions unless you're a combat veteran? =) This would never happen, but just think how reasoned and careful our decisions would be for going to war if we always had leaders who've been to hell-and-back and know, first hand, the real costs of war? Kerry's just one example, but you can cite so many senators, representatives and cabinet members who are war vets that are notoriously cautious when it comes to decisions about war. People like Bush and Cheney who dodged combat are far more cavalier about it.

[geek tragedy]

15. It would kinda limit our options for 2008. Especially if the Rethugs run

McCain.

Your thinking matches mine on the privacy amendment--if we put it in the constitution, no goddamn Bush judges can take it away.

[ArkDem]

25. Not to mention FDR............

[Kingshakabobo]

16. I like the "right to privacy" amendment because most repugs that

I talk to really don't realize that bushie's strict constitutional interpretation means no right to privacy. When I try to explain that fact, I usually get the blank stare we have come to expect from our right wing friends.

Let Bush explain why we don't have a right to privacy. Let the debate begin on how kooky the strict constitutional argument can get for the hardliners.

[confrontationclaws]

17. Privacy amendment

will never happen. It's not like there's people in the streets demonstrating about the supreme court's continual watering down of the 4th amendment; for that matter, I believe that the great majority of people agree with most of the Patriot Act (not to mention Patriot Act II). Unfortunately both Congress and the person on the street are willing to put security before freedom. I know that you're speaking more of "personal" privacy, but it's really all the same--if your bedroom's private enough to have sex in, then it's a private enough place to plan a bombing--no one will vote to approve ANYTHING that will make it harder to prosecute "terrorists." Not even democrats in congress. What was the vote on the Patriot Act again? "You voted for privacy so weren't able to root out the Al Qaeda cell..." is not something a politician wants to hear.

I like the idea...I just think we need to come up with something with a little wider appeal in "these times."

[geek tragedy]

18. I'm talking about protecting certain activities from being criminalized.

This is a distinct issue from searches and seizures.

Though, I agree, that "privacy" implicates both concepts.

[CitizenRob]

19. Even with the abolished

electoral college we still would have lost.

I think we should consider breaking the Democratic party up into regional parties that work togethor on the federal level to form a majority.

Check out my post on the top: Click Here

[geek tragedy]

21. This isn't about undoing these election results--

it's about pressing an agenda for reform.

[IrateCitizen]

20. Universal health care for children

I'd LOVE to see the Republicans justify opposing that one!

[evilqueen]

23. addition

I'd like to see that extended to single-parents as well. It protects the health of a primary caregiver, thus ensuring children HAVE a healthy caregiver. If mom/dad gets deathly sick, who is taking care of the child?

[IrateCitizen]

27. You're missing the game we're playing here, evilqueen

The game isn't necessarily that the amendment would be approved anytime in the foreseeable future. The game is that it assists us in framing issues vis a vis the Republicans.

Democrats are for an amendment to ensure that every child under 18 in the US receives full health insurance. We don't have to give details, we just have to hammer the idea. Republicans, then, would have to either go along with it (and bring it to a vote), or they would have to go against it, thus helping us to solidify the idea that Republicans are against children.

We could even do this with something as silly as an amendment that abusing puppies and kittens is a federal offense. See that -- if you vote for Republicans, you're voting for the killing of puppies and kittens. Who on earth could be for that? Vote Democratic, and save the puppies and kittens!

It's all about perceptions in the public mind. Introducing Amendments sends the message that you're resolute, that you're willing to stand up for "core values". That's why the GOP tried to push for the flag-burning amendment. It's not like it would have really MEANT anything -- it was just used to send the message that the Republicans are resolute in standing up for the flag.

[geek tragedy]

31. Exactamundo!

Make them defend unpopular stands.

We are not accountable. That's the upside to being the party without any power. We need to use that to our advantage.

[evilqueen]

40. ahhhhh... ok... sorry... I've been reading 18th century documents

...for hours and hours at a time... many of the writings of the founders and the founding documents of our country. I'm struck by how much higher their reading/writing level was then compared to how it seems today. I could learn a lot by delving into those old papers and books... if nothing else, my reading level would likely go up. hehe :)

[Kingshakabobo]

24. There you go. Put the ball in their court

and let the repugs play "the heavy"

[demokatgurrl]

26. We should ALL leave the constiution alone, imho.

[IrateCitizen]

28. You're missing the point of this being political theatre.

See my post #27, above, in response to evilqueen.

[hecate77]

30. Trouble is, they would never let it even be introduced.

These people may be nasty and evil, but they are anything but stupid. They would never allow these issues to even get discussed in Congress. They are likely to lock out the Dems even more this cycle than they did the last cycle. The last thing they are interested in is compromise or sharing power. They think they have a mandate to make all laws unilaterally and they intend to try it.

[geek tragedy]

32. I believe the Contract for America just stated that there would be votes

on all of their items.

This is the point--if they refuse to allow votes on these things--they look even more out of touch and entrenched and against reform.

[IrateCitizen]

33. Then you bypass their levers of control...

... and go straight to the people. Hold news conferences, preferably during local news times. They don't have to go national with this, they'd probably be much more effective if they went local en masse.

The important thing is to get this on the public's radar.

"We believe that our children are our most precious resource, and that in order to be a strong nation we must invest in their future. Today, the Democrats in Congress attempted to introduce a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee health care to all children in the United States, up to age 18. The Republican Leadership refused to allow it a hearing. We urge every person watching out there to call their Congressional Representatives, especially if they live in a Republican-controlled district or have a Republican Senator, and ask them why they have taken a stand against our children."

Just imagine what a continuous barrage of events and statements like this could do to help turn public opinion against the Republicans.

[Lerkfish]

36. to start: no one needs to register to vote.

already we have mandatory social security numbers. Just allow one vote per social security number, NO MATTER WHERE that person wants to vote. We spend every damn election pounding the pavement to register people when they should have the right to vote automatically.
The repugs are always for restricted registration...and I say, lift ALL restrictions. EVERYBODY votes, nobody has to register as either republican or democrat, EVERYBODY gets to vote in primaries of ALL parties.

We have the technology. All it would take is a longer vote period...say three days, and longer count period, say 5 days.

THEN, we would finally get over this attention deficit disorder where we have to know IMMEDIATELY even before the polls even close who won.

its a small dream, but it is mine own

[geek tragedy]

37. The only problem is that you have local races going on at the same time.

[Lerkfish]

38. you're NOT SUPPOSED to find flaws in PLAN!!!! ;)

it kinda intereferes with my self perception of having arrived at a perfect solution...d'oh!

seriously, though, that's a good point...but couldn't it STILL be SS number checked against address? How hard would that be to verify if the election workers were given 5 days to verify votes?

I mean, hell, UPS ground takes 3-5 days, I would think VOTING should take at least that long to do RIGHT.

[geek tragedy]

39. One could argue that having all of the information in one central database

makes it easier to cheat.

The main argument against the charges of fraud this time is that it would be damn near impossible to pull that kind of conspiracy off--it would involve thousands upon thousands of elected officials of both parties across the country, as well those behind the scenes.