USA - Constitutional re-write

[LeadMagnet]

The founding fathers of the USA did a great job in writing the constitution but they could have never imagined what the future would hold. The country has simple out grown the current constitution ,and the old one has been patched long enough. It is time for a complete re-write to more closely define many terms to help simplify judgment on many issues and introduce new ones like;


1: taxation - see http://www.nbsforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2045

2: Defining marriage as personal religious commitment not a state sponsored legal item.

3: Defining the term person as a human being regardless of age, sex, religion, and color.

4: Term limits of 20 years of total political service, this would be a sum of local ,state ,and federal service - to help eliminate career politicians.

5: Campaign funding more clearly defined to eliminate soft money, corporate and union contributions, and keep fundraising to $10,000 max per person.

6: Make a balanced budget mandatory.

7: Eliminate the ATF , DOE ,and IRS.

8: Merge the CIA , FBI , NSA, INS, DIA, and Homeland Security into one much smaller department with much more clearly defined rules and a publicly reported budget.

9: Give line item veto power to the President

10: Eliminate the Presidential power to wage war with out a congressional declaration.

11: Define the military?s roll as a defensive force only.

12: Decentralize power away from the federal government out to the states.

13: Add most of the current amendments to the actual body on the constitution, along with the bill of rights.

14: Eliminate the electoral collage

15: Phase out social security

What else would you add to this list?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
The founding fathers of the USA did a great job in writing the constitution but they could have never imagined what the future would hold. The country has simple out grown the current constitution ,and the old one has been patched long enough. It is time for a complete re-write to more closely define many terms to help simplify judgment on many issues and introduce new ones like;


1: taxation - see http://www.nbsforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2045

2: Defining marriage as personal religious commitment not a state sponsored legal item.

3: Defining the term person as a human being regardless of age, sex, religion, and color.

4: Term limits of 20 years of total political service, this would be a sum of local ,state ,and federal service - to help eliminate career politicians.

5: Campaign funding more clearly defined to eliminate soft money, corporate and union contributions, and keep fundraising to $10,000 max per person.

6: Make a balanced budget mandatory.

7: Eliminate the ATF , DOE ,and IRS.

8: Merge the CIA , FBI , NSA, INS, DIA, and Homeland Security into one much smaller department with much more clearly defined rules and a publicly reported budget.

9: Give line item veto power to the President

10: Eliminate the Presidential power to wage war with out a congressional declaration.

11: Define the military?s roll as a defensive force only.

12: Decentralize power away from the federal government out to the states.

13: Add most of the current amendments to the actual body on the constitution, along with the bill of rights.

14: Eliminate the electoral collage

15: Phase out social security

What else would you add to this list?

With the exception of #6, I wouldn't do any of the things on your list.

 

[Zebo]

Except for #7 who pays me you're fine

 

[Zebo]

Whats interesting is doing number 6 would percipitate many of the changes you would like to see.

-For example one of the main arguements for allowing budget overruns is in case of a war, we need the money quick and lots of it. Well you call for "11: Define the military?s roll as a defensive force only." If there was a balanced budget amendment we could'nt engage in war unless we had the monies and we would'nt have the monies unless the majority of the people were willing to buy war bonds which would only happen if we were attacked and in real danger.

I have always thought of government as a cancer which no matter what will keep growing and growing because the law makers need to validate thier exsistance. So if a law is'nt being asked to be passed from one of thier consituants they themselves will take the initiative in proposing new legislation. Short of a revolution or depression I see no hope with so many intrests involved.

The main Law I'd like to see is a super majotity like 3/4 to pass any legislation.

 

[CPA]

ummm, see this shows how much the forefather's knew compared to what you know. They understood that what they wrote was not the end all of constitutional talk, that's why they left open the ability for it to be amended. Many countries didn't/don't have this ability and thus had/have to do a complete rewrite of their constitution when needed. We do not have to do a complete rewrite, we just have to pass amendments, though I am in favor of keeping it as pure as possible.

BTW, I would agree with numbers 6, 7 and 15.

Number 8 already exists (though not in constitutional amendment form) through the creation of the Homeland Security Department, doesn't it? Do you really need an amendment for it?

Number 10 and 12 are already in the constitution, and yes Bush got congress's approval before he the Iraq War.

And getting rid of 14 would effectively change us from a Republic to a Democracy.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Much of that wouldn't necessarily require a constitutional rewrite. I agree with a lot of your points, but you need to include getting rid of the DEA (which has very questionable constitutional validity anyway).

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Those who wish to get rid of the electoral college, maybe do not understand it or they live in a big city and don't care about the rest of the country. If we didn't have the electoral college, anybody who doesn't live in NY or LA would have a meaningless vote. There would be plenty of states that a president would never have to even pretend to like let alone campaign towards. A candidate could completely ignore certain minority groups as he saw fit. The electoral college balances out the votes so that populated areas aren't the only places that a president has to campaign for.

Goodbye electoral college? Goodbye middle America...Goodbye farmers...Good for democrats maybe... It would polarize regions even more than they already are. NY & LA & Chicago would be the cheapest and easiest route to the White house. It may be one way to take more money out of politics (it would probably find some way back into it), but you are also taking more people out of politics.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Those who wish to get rid of the electoral college, maybe do not understand it or they live in a big city and don't care about the rest of the country. If we didn't have the electoral college, anybody who doesn't live in NY or LA would have a meaningless vote. There would be plenty of states that a president would never have to even pretend to like let alone campaign towards. A candidate could completely ignore certain minority groups as he saw fit. The electoral college balances out the votes so that populated areas aren't the only places that a president has to campaign for.

Goodbye electoral college? Goodbye middle America...Goodbye farmers...Good for democrats maybe... It would polarize regions even more than they already are. NY & LA & Chicago would be the cheapest and easiest route to the White house. It may be one way to take more money out of politics (it would probably find some way back into it), but you are also taking more people out of politics.

Winner takes all in electoral college is BS.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Those who wish to get rid of the electoral college, maybe do not understand it or they live in a big city and don't care about the rest of the country. If we didn't have the electoral college, anybody who doesn't live in NY or LA would have a meaningless vote. There would be plenty of states that a president would never have to even pretend to like let alone campaign towards. A candidate could completely ignore certain minority groups as he saw fit. The electoral college balances out the votes so that populated areas aren't the only places that a president has to campaign for.

Goodbye electoral college? Goodbye middle America...Goodbye farmers...Good for democrats maybe... It would polarize regions even more than they already are. NY & LA & Chicago would be the cheapest and easiest route to the White house. It may be one way to take more money out of politics (it would probably find some way back into it), but you are also taking more people out of politics.

Winner takes all in electoral college is BS.

What are you saying?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Those who wish to get rid of the electoral college, maybe do not understand it or they live in a big city and don't care about the rest of the country. If we didn't have the electoral college, anybody who doesn't live in NY or LA would have a meaningless vote. There would be plenty of states that a president would never have to even pretend to like let alone campaign towards. A candidate could completely ignore certain minority groups as he saw fit. The electoral college balances out the votes so that populated areas aren't the only places that a president has to campaign for.

Goodbye electoral college? Goodbye middle America...Goodbye farmers...Good for democrats maybe... It would polarize regions even more than they already are. NY & LA & Chicago would be the cheapest and easiest route to the White house. It may be one way to take more money out of politics (it would probably find some way back into it), but you are also taking more people out of politics.

People have been repeating this same crap every since the 2000 election. As I understand it, your electoral college is much like our constitiuency-based democracy. Our systems are simply less democratic than a proportional-representation system. If 18% of people vote for a party and because of the system the party only gets 4 seats out of 125 (3.2%), how is this fair? And if you don't think this happens, look at the recent Quebec election - this is exactly what happened the ADQ. In 1998, it happened to the Liberals.

The fears you have a pretty much baseless, as PR democracy works well in the rest of the world. European farmers recieve more subsidies than the American ones.

Thankfully, we seem to be moving towards a PR system here in Canada. Quebec will likely adopt a PR system before their next elections and the system is under consideration in several other provinces.

 

[XZeroII]

The problem is that you are adding your own personal views to the mix. The constitution is the basic framework of our government. It is not a set of laws...it describes how our government works. You have many items in there that reflect your personal views and are not universal laws that everyone agrees is right. 11: Define the military?s roll as a defensive force only. That may seriously hinder our ability to assist allies, or to protect our interests. You do not understand the full implications of what you are proposing. The constitution CANNOT be rewritten because it would simply be rewritten all the time whenever someone wanted to add something. The Constitution should simply provide a framework for how our government works, nothing more.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Those who wish to get rid of the electoral college, maybe do not understand it or they live in a big city and don't care about the rest of the country. If we didn't have the electoral college, anybody who doesn't live in NY or LA would have a meaningless vote. There would be plenty of states that a president would never have to even pretend to like let alone campaign towards. A candidate could completely ignore certain minority groups as he saw fit. The electoral college balances out the votes so that populated areas aren't the only places that a president has to campaign for.

Goodbye electoral college? Goodbye middle America...Goodbye farmers...Good for democrats maybe... It would polarize regions even more than they already are. NY & LA & Chicago would be the cheapest and easiest route to the White house. It may be one way to take more money out of politics (it would probably find some way back into it), but you are also taking more people out of politics.

Winner takes all in electoral college is BS.

What are you saying?

keep electoral college but mandate the states to split the vote up according to the percentage of votes casted for a canaidate. Problem solved.

 

[GoSharks]

line item veto = president making policy
no check/balance to this.
not good

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
line item veto = president making policy
no check/balance to this.
not good

I would disagree with this. If the president cut out something important in a bill, it could passed again. Congress has the ability to override the president. Checks and balances do exist.

 

[MrChicken]

Forcing the Fed into a balanced budget would be a fiasco.

All that would happen is taxes would go up.

How would it be enforced? Put legislators in jail?

 

[glenn1]

No need to rewrite. If we simply followed what is clearly written in the document, and particularly the Tenth Amendment, that would solve most of the "problems" that both the political right and left always bring up.

("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.")



Apart from honoring the Tenth, i'd only make two small changes to the Constitution. I'd abolish the Sixteenth Amendment (establishing the income tax) and would substitute in its place a different amendment. It would read to the effect of:

"Congress shall neither direct nor authorize funds to be expended by the Treasury, without a bill approved by the Congress and signed by the President, which cites in the same bill the specific Constitutional provision granting authority to Congress to make said expenditures."

 

[Dari]

A balanced budget (all the time) is not necessarily a good idea. The balanced budget functions well in economic theory, but there are too many variables in the real world to make the annual budget balanced.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with a little debt, so long as it's manageable.

 

[Spudd]

The Supreme Court already ruled on the line item veto issue with City of New York v. Clinton back in 1998. It violated Article I of the Constitution--presentment procedure. Basically, it would allow the president to illegally repeal or amend passed legislation and to avoid the Constitutional requirement that he either sign or reject the bill.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: glenn1
No need to rewrite. If we simply followed what is clearly written in the document, and particularly the Tenth Amendment, that would solve most of the "problems" that both the political right and left always bring up.

("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.")



Apart from honoring the Tenth, i'd only make two small changes to the Constitution. I'd abolish the Sixteenth Amendment (establishing the income tax) and would substitute in its place a different amendment. It would read to the effect of:

"Congress shall neither direct nor authorize funds to be expended by the Treasury, without a bill approved by the Congress and signed by the President, which cites in the same bill the specific Constitutional provision granting authority to Congress to make said expenditures."

Well said.

 

[Spudd]

Charrison--> line item veto = un-constitutional. Period.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I would disagree with this. If the president cut out something important in a bill, it could passed again. Congress has the ability to override the president. Checks and balances do exist.

Let's pretend a bill passed Congress in 2001 which included increased funding for Special Education as advocated by Jim Jeffords . . . do you really think Bush wouldn't veto such an item out of spite?

It's a shame we cannot bring regime change to America because the rock garden in Congress is sucking America dry of natural resources and rights.

 

[LeadMagnet]

It's a shame we cannot bring regime change to America because the rock garden in Congress is sucking America dry of natural resources and rights.

here here !!!

 

[JellyBaby]

In order to rewrite the constitution you'd have to throw out the current one and the only way to do that is by revolt and war. You would find that a tough sell.

Whats interesting is doing number 6 would percipitate many of the changes you would like to see

Delving even deeper elimination of the 16th Amendment would also precipitate most of those changes including #6. Again, tough sell.

The constitution defines how how the federal government operates and puts forth a set of limits on that government. All else is up to the States. That's about it.

It's pretty damn simple and most of us can easily understand it. Why complicate it? Some of your items would need further enumeration. The federal tax code has lots of enumerations. Are you sure you'd want your constitution penned by the same wordy lawyers who wrote the tax code? I sure wouldn't. Keep it simple, keep it safe.

We have a modifiable constitution with the legislative branch in place as watchdog against bad changes. Unfortunately, you need good judges to prevent bad changes and our politicians are striving to emplace less-than-constitution folk on the bench.

 

[LunarRay]

I suppose it would be a reasonably good idea to have about 150 more ammendments to the Constitution... so that we wouldn't need to bounce those strick constructionalists against the looser its inferred folks.. But, we have settled law and it is easier for society t o change law than to change the Constitution... And states are suppose to be sovereign so long as they don't bash heads with the Constitution... Ammending it would take all sorts of power from the states...

And why have term limits... ain't that what voting is all about... why take away someone I want simply because they've been in office for 36 years... or more... go teddy.

 

[Spudd]

It is precisely because we have notions of a democratic republic that we do not have term limits for the Congress, just the Presidency, for quite obvious reasons. If people don't like a particular politician that much, then vote his butt out of office. The fact that they can maintain a political career that long means that they've done an excellent job getting folks to vote for them over, and over.