Does the Constitution need to be re-written? If so what would you do?

[Xenotime]

What would you put in there? What would you take out? What would you leave in there?

[Atman]

1. Didn't BushCo already re-write it?

Oh, wait...no, those are just W's shit-stains all over it. Never mind.

.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. The right to vote and have your vote counted and recored. Citizen recall for federal offices,

Senante and Exectutive, since the House is only 2 years, I'd advise against recall for the house.

[bdamomma]

3. no it just has to be followed again.

[Marr]

4. Proportional representation.

The two-party system does not work very well.

[Poiuyt]

51. And with some form of instant runoff voting

Abolish the Electoral College

[Selatius]

86. There's no IRV in proportional representation. There can be for presidential races though.

Under proportional representation, you vote for the political party and its platform, not necessarily an individual for an individual seat. IRV only comes into play if you're voting for an individual candidate for an individual seat.

The US House of Representatives could easily be switched to party-list proportional representation where you vote for the party you favor, while the US Senate could be switched over to IRV.

The presidency, with one individual to one seat, could benefit as well from IRV. I agree, junk the Electoral College. The only problem is small states would effectively block such a measure, since they are given a disproportionate amount of weight compared to their population size in the College.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. No

[MrCoffee]

33. not just no, but hell no.

[MindPilot]

6. I agree that it just needs to be followed, but I would do two things:

Do away with the electoral college and add an explicit right-to-privacy.

[stirlingsliver]

7. No Electoral College

No electoral college.

And one person/one vote for BOTH houses of Congress.

Expressly forbid the creation of "First Amendment Zones" and allow for TRUE right to protest.

The Bill of Rights should include the following rights:

The Right to adequate Health Care

The Right to adequate housing

The Right to a living wage

The Right to complete reproductive freedom.

That's just for starters.

[Thothmes]

90. All well and good except

The decisions as to what constitutes "adequate" anything is subject to the whims of a court or the Congress.

[hobbit709]

8. National referendum on war.

All voting for war automatically sign up at the same time.

[Benhurst]

9. How do you rewrite a shredded document?

:shrug:

[hedgehog]

10. The allocation of Senate seats has to change. It's fine to have

a variety of state sises and population densities in response to regional variations. Local decisions belong to local governments. But the notion that New York gets 2 Senate votes and so does Wyoming when it comes to national issues, that just doesn't make sense anymore. Neither does the notion that somehow the states are in an adversarial relationship.

New York has about 19 million people, Wyoming 500 thousand.

[Marrah_G]

16. That's why there is the house of Reps

I do agree with you though on some level. I think our country has become far to large to be supported by one central government. Like Rome, the US wills someday split up into more manageable countries.

[Toucano]

28. 535 people cannot govern 300 million.

And more could not effectively debate an issue or make a decision.

A lot of shit need to be turned back over to the states.

Each representative should have no more than a few thousand constituents for democracy to actually work.

[Marrah_G]

30. I couldn't agree more

And I truly believe that in time we will see a very different governmental landscape on this continent. This won't be anything new, just history replaying itself like the tides on the ocean. Empires grow, become great, become corrupted and then die. Then another arises... wash, rinse, repeat. In the scope of history there is nothing new about what we are going through.

My guess is that in time the north east (I use this as an example because it is where I know best) will become an autonomous social democracy, much like some countries in Europe are now.

[Toucano]

34. "Wash, rinse, repeat" CLASSIC!

:)

[FatDave]

68. Just the northeast?

I'd like to see the northeast, upper midwest, pacific northwest, and California (you know, the big block of blue states) split off into "Liberal America". Let the right have the south and the square states. But stay on good terms.

[Marrah_G]

80. No, not just the NE

I used the NE as an example because I know this region the best.

[NYVet]

18. That is why we have the House

The Senate is a speedbump and allows small states like RI and MA to have an equal voice in government.

[hedgehog]

25. Except RI and MA aren't small states! Well, MA isn't.

Rhode Island - 1,067,610
Massachusetts - 6,437,193

Total Population: 7,500,000, 4 Democratic Senators

Compare to:

Wyoming - 515,004
Alaska - 670,053
Maine - 1,321,574

Total population: 2,500,000, 6 Republican Senators.

So 4 reactionary republicans from Wyoming and Alaska can block pollution control legislation that controls acid rain drifting over Massachusetts.

[Marrah_G]

31. RI is actually a suburb of Mass......

:hide:

~ducks from flying cartons of Autocrat (caw-fee milk)~

[madinmaryland]

65. Delaware is just a toll booth between MD and NJ!!1!!

:hide:

[NYVet]

49. I should have chosen WV or VT as better examples. (NT)

[Flarney]

11. No corporate personhood. n/t

[guitar man]

13. I agree

maybe an amendment is in order to keep artifical private constructs from holding any of the rights reserved for individuals......

[MonkeyFunk]

29. So a corporation

shouldn't be protected from unreasonable search & seizure, or be subject to due process?

[guitar man]

36. no

those rights are reserved for individual people

[MonkeyFunk]

37. So the government

should be able to seize Planned Parenthood's records?

They should be able to just walk into the corner delicatessen and confiscate everything?

They should be able to into the New York Times printing headquarters and seize the press?

They should be able to demand that Apple fork over all proceeds from the iPod to the government?

Would state and local governments be able to do it, too?

[guitar man]

39. you know

I don't know all the answers. All I know is that since Santa Clara vs Union Pacific this country has been held at the mercy of the rich and powerful and every time someone tries to do something about it we get beat over the head with the damn corporate personhood issue.

Maybe some point of moderation should be reached. I do know that in this part of the country Wal Mart has bulldozed over everybody and everything and on more than one occasion has argued their rights as an individual.

Let me pose this question. If a corporation is a "person", who goes to prison if that "person" kills somebody or otherwise violates the law. The execs scurry like rats every time the issue of accountability comes up.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. You don't know the answers to those questions?!?!?!

I do. The answer is NO!

My point is that the corporate personhood idea is overused here. The problem with corporations will not be solved by taking away all their rights. Most corporations are just fine - they include the Mom & Pop grocery on the corner, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, the contractor who built your deck.

There's no Supreme Court precedent that states we can't have greater corporate accountability. We need it, and nothing prevents the congress from passing it, and nothing prevents the Feds from enforcing the laws.

I just object to the idea that there's some legal precedent called "corporate personhood" that, if done away with, would solve all our problems.

Big problems don't have such simple solutions.

[guitar man]

46. no, the solutions aren't simple

and I do tend to play devil's advocate a bit ;)

I think the best thing we can do to keep corporations in check is to do away with the ridiculous notion of "tort reform" as it exists today. Fact is, when corporations DO misbehave, we can't lock them in prison and we can't put them in the electric chair. At least not literally. About the only way they can be punished is to hit them wher it really hurts.

I do think we need to re-visit what the rich and powerful are able to do in the name of the "individual rights" of the behemoths they have created. They are killing us withe their unreasonable excesses and need to be reigned in....hard.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. I agree

we need stronger regulation, and greater enforcement of the law, including jailing the bad actors, dissolving corporations that repeatedly break the law, etc. etc.

But the notion that corporations should be exempt from all the protections of the constitution struck me as bizarre.

[guitar man]

50. I don't know

where to draw the line or how to protect the rights of corporations that legitimately need to be protected, but, the notion that an artificial construct such as a corporation should share the same rights as an individual human strikes me as a bit bizarre. It's like we have made monsters that have the rights we have, but none of the responsibility or accountability that you or I as individuals are held to for our actions...or inactions.

Maybe it is justt something the Founders didn't forsee.

[MonkeyFunk]

53. But my point is they DON'T share the same rights

Corporations can't marry or vote. They are NOT people in the eyes of the law, so just claiming that some footnote in a supreme court decision from 140 years ago that carries no weight of law should be "repealed" is just strange to me.

I want the country to have a real discussion of how better to address the problems with large corporations without resorting to bumpersticker slogans like "repeal corporate personhood!"

[guitar man]

54. but that decision

does carry weight in law. Just try to stand in their way and see what happens. I know they don't marry, or vote. But they do exercise more influence over our elections than anybody else. Hell, they pretty much own the government as it is, so by now the whole point is probably moot anyway.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. I'm not arguing with the point

that corporations have too much power.

I'm arguing that Santa Clara vs. Union Pacific Railroad isn't the underlying cause of the problem.

[guitar man]

57. then what is?

How the hell was Walmart down here pressing its rights as an individual and threatning a discrimination suit if it didn't get to put one of its damn Supercenters where they wanted to put it, in violation of a covenant between the city and a homeowners association that was put in place to provide an easment for theit neighborhood?

If it wasn't Santa Clara that enable that, then what did?

[MonkeyFunk]

60. I have no idea

not familiar with the case, and I'm not a lawyer. But I'd be very surprised if they quoted a footnote from Santa Clara v Union Pacific as their justification. Also, you said they "threatened" a suit. That doesn't mean they filed a suit and won. A lawyer can threaten just about anything.

You seem not to be understanding my point, though. I agree with you that much needs to be done to reign in the power that corporations have. Where we disagree is on the issue of removing all constitutional protections for corporations.

The constitution limits what the government can do, and that's a good thing, whether it applies to people or to corporations. That doesn't mean that people can do as they wish with no repercussions, and it shouldn't mean that corporations can, either.

Now, about the case you mentioned - I don't know any details, but in the abstract, I can see a discrimination suit being filed a corporation. Hypothetically, say "Ebony" magazine tried to rent office space in Beverly Hills and was turned down because of the race of most of most of the employees. The discrimination is against the corporation, and they should have legal recourse.

I'm really just saying that it's a complex problem that isn't going to be solved with a bumpersticker.

[guitar man]

67. I agree

it isn't going to be solved with a bumper sticker. I was trying to find a link to a story on the case I mentioned, but by now, it is 5 years ago or so, the story has probably fallen out of sight.

As I remember, there were 3 or 4 stores going in around here and more than one was being contested, so I may not remember all the details, but I do know that the Edmond City Council caved into them. The city council chambers filled up to capacity and they had to open up a facility across the street and pipe closed circuit tv to accomodate the overflow. All the people were saying hell no to another Walmart, to no avail.

But I do remember clearly, one of their army of lawyers on television vehemently asserting Walmart's rights as being the same as those of an individual to reside where they pleased and that it would be like discriminating against an individual to deny them. That just struck me as wrong. I never heard him specifically cite Santa Clara, but the overtones were certainly there.

I'm not a lawyer either, so maybe the complexities are beyond my grasp, but something needs to be done on a major scale and soon about corporate power and the ability of the rich and powerful to run this country into a ruinous plutocracy....if it already isn't too late :(

[LanternWaste]

43. if along with the benefits...

I'd have no problems with corporation achieving 'person hood' status if along with the benefits they receive from the law, they also bore the consequences borne from the law.

But that appears not to be the case...

[MonkeyFunk]

45. But the fact is

corporations aren't persons, in fact or in law.

A corporation can't marry. A corporation can't vote.

I'm not in any way arguing against stronger enforcement of the law and greater regulation of corporations that break the rules - including the dissolution of those corporations.

But to think that we can simply say "Corporations aren't people" as if it would overturn some existing status and solve all our problems is naive.

[TahitiNut]

52. At a minimum, a corporation shouldn't be able to own a corporation.

Enron was a conglomerate of over 500 "corporations" - designed almost solely to facilitate corrupt practices, "firewalling" civil liability, enabling tax avoidance/evasion, and enabling practices under differing legal jusisdictions.

Property cannot own property - which is why your dog can't inherit your house. A corporation is supposedly a collection of property dedicated toward a cited business purpose and, as such, *IS* property. The black hole in this is the ownership (either partial or whole, publicly traded or not) of other corporations. That should be prohibited, imho.

All corporate stock should, imho, be owned only by human beings. Further, I'd impose a national (sales?) tax on the sale or exchange of corporate stock. It's insane we have to pay a sales tax if we buy a pair of shoes but no sales tax if we buy a shoe company.

[Orsino]

66. And public financing for candidates at all levels.

With no private donations, ever.

[MonkeyFunk]

69. cool

I'll just be a perpetual candidate for various offices and live off the free money.

[Orsino]

76. That'll work well. n/t

[treestar]

88. Corporations are not evil in and of themselves

That's not the problem. Most corporations are one or two person affairs set up to allow ordinary individuals to go into business.

I see where you're coming from, I just think it's a major mistake. The solution might be more on the order of changing the tax laws regarding large corporations, or simplifying them so they can't get around them as easily. The SEC exists to monitor huge corporations. Maybe a limit on their size. But doing away with them as such would harm small businesspeople unmercifully. The rich would just find another way.

[A HERETIC I AM]

92. The Securities and Exchange Commission does not exist to "monitor huge corporations"

The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.

As more and more first-time investors turn to the markets to help secure their futures, pay for homes, and send children to college, our investor protection mission is more compelling than ever.

As our nation's securities exchanges mature into global for-profit competitors, there is even greater need for sound market regulation.

And the common interest of all Americans in a growing economy that produces jobs, improves our standard of living, and protects the value of our savings means that all of the SEC's actions must be taken with an eye toward promoting the capital formation that is necessary to sustain economic growth.

http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml

[Beerboy]

12. Does the Gov't need to re-write it?

When they do, will they care how much we don't like it?

[acmavm]

14. Hell no. It was written by men far more intelligent, decent, ethical,

courageous, and dedicated to bettering life for their COUNTRYMEN than any of the corrupt shits we have in politics now. (Except Al Gore)

[Marrah_G]

15. No.. The document is fine. Ignoring it is the problem.

[mmonk]

17. If you rewrite it, they don't have to follow that one either.

Just fool the people since the American public is largely dull and ignorant of what is going on.

[Beerboy]

24. Whoever 'they' are have to be careful;

Marbury vs. Madison establishes the Courts have review over the Legislative and Executive since 1803, except in extreme cases laid out in the Constitution.
They've been fighting over it ever since.

[mmonk]

26. Very true. However, judicial review

has given way to partisanship through members of the Federalist society.

[Beerboy]

38. When haven't nominees to courts been partisan?

The Constitution lays out that the President may nominate, but the Senate must confirm to the bench. The Constitution also originally said the 2 U.S. Senators from each state were to be selected by that State's legislature, which changed about 100 years ago to a popular vote.
The Federalist Society isn't a branch of the judiciary ensconced w/ Constitutional powers, it's a political school-of-thought in the private realm.
While it's correct to say that some in the judiciary may be members of the FS, it doesn't necessarily follow that the FS thereby controls the Federal judiciary. Or is it the ACLU?

[mmonk]

73. I'll rephrase that into the courts have people on them

now that do not interpret the constitution the same way constitutional scholars do.

[wtmusic]

19. With all the controversy over what the REAL Constitution said

"There is considerable evidence that the one in the National Archives is a fake created in the 19th century -- and that Jefferson's original, signed by 104 founding fathers, granted far greater powers to the Chief Executive."

Be ready for that one.

[IDemo]

20. Provide for the right to travel freely

Which apparently the founders thought so obvious they did not feel the need to specify it.

The proposed "Secure Flight" program will be another gigantic step towards a "your papers please" nation.

[mainegreen]

21. 1) All governmental departments must answer to the legislative branch.

2) The military would have three representatives, one from the house, one from the senate, as well as the president playing the role of commander in chief, replacing the president as the sole person fulfilling this role
3) Some method of national, popular vote referendum

[Phillycat]

22. No electoral college.

That's all that needs to be changed for everything to be made right in this country.

[harun]

62. Good one, forgot that in my list (n/t)

[Toucano]

23. I'd take out the income tax.

And put in consumption based taxes.

I would strengthen the separation of church and state, and clarify that corporations are not people but institutions that must be treated as suspect.

Hell, let's just put the Economic Bill of Rights in there while we're at it.

[Exultant Democracy]

27. Yes of course, I for one would love to live in a real democracy

something the the founders were trying their best to avoid. When they wrote the constitution democracy was still a dirty word, the whole shebang was set up to hamper democracy and favor the wealthy.

[ToeBot]

32. Parliamentary Congress, direct election of the President, disband the Senate entirely. nt

[CK_John]

35. My greatest fear a constitutional convention. n/t

[Beerboy]

44. King George III, is that you? n/t.

[digitalbuddha]

40. It is 200 years old, time for a rewrite

Some of the stuff needs to stay, of course.

Article I -
The government on a federal, state, county, and local level will have no say on what a person puts into or takes out of their body.

Sure, this is very simply written and would need some clarification and perhaps should be article II (assuming the first would be to explain what is considered a person and what isn't). This would do away with abortion debates (hopefully) and the drug war and assisted suicide and all sorts of things that mandate what we can or can not do to our bodies.

[Squatch]

42. Tighten the conditions under which the military can be used

[tammywammy]

48. The only thing I'd add is

The Equal Right Amendment. Other than that, I think the Constitution is fine the way it is.

[Perry Logan]

55. I'd kill the 2nd Amendment and add abortion to the Bill of Rights.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

58. One addition

A Human Rights Amendment.
Full legal codification of the full rights of all human beings who are citizens of the United States of America, regardless of race, religion, creed, gender or orientation.

[leftofthedial]

59. publicly financed, very limited campaigns

proportional representation

eliminate the two-party system

eliminate the federal reserve

reign in the capitalist takeover of democracy by codifying taxes and regulations on practice of capitalism and oligarchy (corporations, capital gains, inheritance)

clearly define that corporations are NOT people and money is NOT free speech

restore congressional power over the executive

term limits (long, but not lifetime) for federal judiciary

specify common rights (bill of rights, plus basics like food, education, shelter and health care) for ALL

restore majority rule, not super-majority rule in legislature for most items except war

make non-domestic spending EXTREMELY difficult, especially military spending

limit war budget to 7% of budget, except in time of war

codify investments in infrastructure (especially technology), the arts, education


a few ideas off the top of my head

[harun]

61. 1. Judges can't belong to political parties. 2. Seperation of

Corporations and state.

3. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the constitution must be STRICTLY adhered to, and under no circumstances can Congress cede its authority to go to war to the president so they can decide.

4. The definition of war for Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 shall be any act of violence. (Yes, the CIA (and other agencies) would need approval from congress to partake in terrorism.)

5. The National Guard of the United States cannot be deployed to foreign lands.

6. Approval for military action must be renewed every three years in a vote by Congress.

7. Foreign aid packages of goods or capital must be voted on by congress for renewal at maximum every two years.

8. Cap credit card interest rates at 15%. No entity can charge more than 15% on any loan or credit and fees must be of a reasonable amount.

9. The Capital Gains tax rate cannot be less than the Federal Income tax rate.


That is what I would add, I wouldn't take anything out.

[Thothmes]

91. Don't disagree with most of you thought except

item 5. It was the 26th infantry division (VA National Guard) that landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day. It was the North Dakota National Guard Division that relieved the 1st Marine Division on Guadalcanal. From a source I read many years ago, the National Guard provided 15 full Divisions to the U.S. Army during WWII. I would merely limit their use to actions authorized under Article 1, Section 8, clause 11. OBTW I would change clause 11 to strip Congress of it's power to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal.

[harun]

93. That works for me (n/t)

[earth mom]

63. NO-except get rid of corporate personhood. Corporate control is what's wrong with this country!

Wrong to the point of killing the rest of us & our rights off. :puke:

[Squatch]

64. Are corporations a Constitutional construct?

:shrug:

[earth mom]

70. See post #13. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

71. and see the whole discussion that follows

a bumpersticker slogan like "kill corporate personhood" doesn't do anything to address the issue.

Corporations should have rights. The discussion should be about which rights, and how best to enforce the laws pertaining to them.

You can't take away all rights from corporations, so the discussion needs to be moved up a level.

[earth mom]

74. I disagree with you COMPLETELY. Corporations are monsters who have ruined this country.

The PEOPLE are the ones who own this country and it's time we took that power back from the corporations that think they own the place.


BTW-You've made your point up thread. Why did you find it necessary to reply to my post too? Guess you've gotta hit everyone over the head with your rethuglican-esque talking points. :eyes:

[treestar]

87. The big ones

But no corporate personhood could make small business impossible. It would increase the power of wealthy individuals, as they would be the only ones that could start a business.

[harun]

94. I disagree, the government has provided about 1

non-military job to ALL the members of my family who have ever been. On the other hand corporations have employed about half of my family (I know of, so over 100 people).

While in need of reform, I won't go as far as calling them monsters.

[Yavapai]

72. Not by the current crop of corporate politicians!

But if they did, how about an amendment that would make every Wednesday night a free speech night on all commercial Radio and television channels(including cable and satellite)for all political candidates that would also requires balanced representation. This would be a requisite for their use of the airways and cut down the extreme cost of electing our leadership.


Even if many wouldn’t watch it, it would give an evening for those families to interact with each other and who knows maybe we would have a more informed electorate.

[JFN1]

75. Not a re-write - just add the two additional branches of government we're missing

[Norrin Radd]

77. Free Pizza Fridays.

[H2O Man]

78. No.

If both regular citizens and politicians became familiar with the Constitution, it would be nice.

[Selatius]

85. Whoops, wrong spot. n/t

[Vinca]

79. No. It needs to be read. nt

[ileus]

81. Strengthen the second amendment, tax increases must be voted on by the people.

I would do two things:

Strengthen the second amendment, Clarify it to mean the individuals right to own and bear arms without a shadow of a doubt. Never to be argued.

All taxes would have to be voted on by the people. The state, and local governments shouldn't get a free pass into my wallet for Christmas bonuses, teachers unions, or a new H2 police cruiser.
Personal property should be just that personal, not a joint owner ship with the county/state. Real estate taxes should accessed by your address now what’s sitting behind the address, everyone should pay an equal part lets at least attempt to be fair to everyone.

[Dorian Gray]

82. No

I like our constitution just as it is.

[Odin2005]

83. We need a parliamentary system, I'm sick of the Imperial Presidency.

Every other country that has had a presidential system of government has fallen into dictatorship at some point or another.

Oh, and I get annoyed by some of the knee-jerk "no" posts. The Founders may have been brilliant by they were not gods, and respect of the document they wrote should not turn into idolatry. IMO a country should write up a new constitution every century or so.

[Alter Ego]

84. Hee hee hee...

In addition to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I'd add the Bill of Common Sense.

Article 1: Be it known that no individual who shall occupy the Office of President of the United States shall have an intelligence quotient less than that of a rotting turnip.

Article 2: Be it known that waterboarding is, indeed, Torture.

Article 3: Be it known that only Legitimate news Reporters shall be admitted to Press conferences. Male prostitutes who are Plants for the current Administration shall be turned away at the door.

Article 4: Be it known that the Aforementioned Bill of Rights and Constitution apply to ALL participants in our Country's legal system, including "suspicious-looking brown people".

Article 5: Be it known that Every electronic voting machine in the country shall be Outfitted with a small slot that dispenses a Paper copy of the list of Candidates a voter has just cast a vote for. Failure to do so will result in the firing of a State's entire elections committee.

Article 6: Be it known that those Citizens in the highest tax brackets can and shall pay more taxes on their income. Congress shall make no law that lowers the tax rate on the wealthy to a rate lower than that of the middle- and lower-classes.

Article 7: Be it known that a Citizen's e-mail conversations and phone calls are the Citizen's own damn business, and Congress nor the President nor the Judicial Branch shall make any law or pass any edict that allows the Government to illegally eavesdrop on domestic communications without a warrant.

[treestar]

89. A check on the President's pardon power

The Senate having to confirm it, or something. Granted they might still get it where we don't agree with it, but have some check on it.