In 1787, delegates from twelve of the thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation met to revise a document that was out of sync with the needs of the nation. But instead of revising the Articles, they started anew, drafting the U.S. Constitution.
After a period of debate, revision and ratification, the Articles officially ended and the Constitution came into effect in 1789. The first Congress met. George Washington became president. And 222 years ago, the Constitution became the supreme law of the land.
Has the time come to revisit the document?
America today is quite different from the America of yore. Meanwhile, other nations have updated their constitutions successfully, bringing them more in line with modern democratic representation, for example.
On the other hand, the Constitution enshrined timeless principles of liberty and justice. The document's longevity is itself testament to its lasting value. Would it be a mistake to tinker with such a success script?
What do you think? Should the U.S. Constitution be updated and if so, how? What amendments would you recommend?
We'll feature the best responses on the Global Public Square.
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
Fareed,
Re the Stockman-Reich debate, why cannot the Federal and state governments be asked to sell assets to pay off the debt as the Greeks are being asked to do? Government lands and buildings could be sold, along with airports, ports etc.
3 amendments to be updated as you requested of your viewers this morning, Mr. Zakaria: (by commenting you may assume I agree that the updates are necessary or at least should be considered) 1) an amendment supposedly left out by the founding fathers was that in addition to the first amendment bill of rights right to a speedy trial; that of a mandated timeline in which to have it. a limit on time would prevent much legal posturing, advance cases through the justice system more swiftly and necessarily reduce taxpayer costs for lengthy trials. 2) the creation of a national bank. our current credit and banking system's fallibility has only in the last few years become so publicly obvious. we've chartered a national bank a handful of times in our unique American history, each instance with some successes our new national bank could model itsef after. 3) an amendment to balance the budget; why is this not the case already? sustainability of a lasting United States of America comes only with calculated measures of austerity.
Thank you for the opportunity to reply. Good day to all.
1) It is up to congress to define a speedy trial. The constitution can't set limits for every condition without trampling on the odd defendant's rights. An ammendment to punish frivolous litigation might be a good idea.2) setting a debt limit of 15 trillion dollars lowering by 2 billion annually takes overspending out of the hands of congress while allowing flexibility. 3) Eliminating the ability of corporations AND trade unions to contribute to or advertise for political candidates will help with regulating the banking system. The FED is already a national bank and Andrew Jackson was right in abolishing this crooked bad idea.
I agree with Matthew Holmes on all three.
#1-balanced budget amendment, #2 eliminate the electoral college amd go with the publoc vote directly, and modify the second amendment to limit public weapons to "clips" of no more than 14 rounds.
I agree w/all 3 Matt, but lets go a few steps further. I would totally abolish the Electoral College, most Americans are so uninformed that they still believe their vote for president counts! That is to say for something more than a popularity contest. We need to change the Senate rules, there is no fairness in allowing smaller populations to have equal votes as the larger populations,i.e. your example of Wisconsin & California. We all learn the lie "One man, One vote" well as a friend said to me recently while discussing the struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, he said "What would the USA do if it came here?" God Bless Us ALL
2). The Constitution give only to Congress the right to print currency as it reads now. It is amazing that we have allowed that the Fed has lasted as long as it has.
The idea that a national bank should be enshrined in the "new" Constitution is one that should be rejected out of hand. Money issued into circulation as debt is a scam, for the simple reason that once the very first dollar is issued into circulation with a promise to repay with interest it is mathematically impossible to repay all debts. It is no longer taught in schools, but the Founding Fathers experienced this first hand with the introduction of the Currency Act that required the colonies to borrow money from the Bank of England, and misery and poverty soon followed.
Charles F and Allan, you'll find my additional comments far below, in a reply to John T support both your writings. We don't disagree. Central Banking in its current form is flawed. The existence of a chartered national bank as I suggest and the existence of the Federal Reserve (in current form) are mutually exclusive. My suggestion for one doesn't imply the continuation of the other. A national bank in the form proposed by Alexander Hamilton gives the US the ability to interpret The Constitution very strictly, and can eliminate the need for repayment of debt with interest, a burdensome taxpayer responsibility.
Also an amendment to make presidential elections by popular vote instead of the wasteful and undemocratic electoral college.
Mr. Zakaria
I respect that you have an opinion, but I suggest you actually do some research into Madison's writings. This gives an intimate look into the mind of the father of the U.S. Constitution. First, you will learn the difference between a Democracy, which the United States is not, and a Republic, which the United States is. What you suggest...one man, one vote, is known as a "pure democracy."
There are plenty of known dangers to this type of system. For one, it has no principled anchor. Everything can change with a simple minority vote. And with this, those like you who have the power of the press have an extraordinary amount of influence, since the people can be herded through concerted propaganda. For instance, the press could decide to run a lot of info on problems that black people create in this country. Doesn't matter if it is true or not, the people will by it if it is plausible. Then, votes can take place to remove black people from this country, or strip them of rights. This is how a pure democracy works. One man one vote, high score wins.
A Republic, on the other hand offers protections to the minority. In no way shape or form did our founders want this country to be a democracy. It was designed as a Republic. Hearing your words, I was reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin, who when asked what type of government they had given the people, responded, "A Republic, if you can keep it." He was an exceedingly intelligent man who had the foresight to understand that people like you would seek to undermine the Republic at every turn. More often than not, people like you are not evil, you are just misguided.
You say that you want one man, one vote. Yet you are an immigrant and a member of a minority. Do you realize that if it is one man one vote, it would be very easy for people to simply vote in a law that not only restricts legal immigration, but stops it altogether. If you disagree, then you are not talking about one mane one vote. You are moving toward a Democratic Republic, which is what we have. But you simply want the Republic side of it to be weaker.
You seem to not understand the reason for many facets of the framework for our Republic. You are puzzled why Wyoming, North Dakota, Rhode Island, etc... would have the same number of Senators as states such as California, Texas, Florida and New York. If you had your way, states that have low populations would simply be run over by the more populous states. In fact, it would be nearly pointless to vote in some of these smaller states. The 6 to 10 most populous states would rule the country. This is an undeniable truth.
The electoral college is also a way to protect the smaller states. Remove this protection and the states with lesser populations will cease to matter, even more.
And what about a farmer who owns land? Or a business owner, such as a barber shop, or a small town mom and pop diner? They are the minority. For every small business, you have 4, 6 10, 50 or more employees. By making things, "one man one vote" you are in effect, putting the children in charge of the family finances. If you have a half dozen children, do you give them a voice, or do you allow them to run the house? If you decide that the family can't go on a vacation this weekend, but you can go the following weekend, do you allow the children to overrule you? If you determine that you can't afford a new house right now, do you allow the children to vote and overrule you and your wife? I seriously doubt any family operates that way.
The Greeks had a government that was closer to being a pure democracy. The Romans, for the first 500 years, had something closer to what we have. Patricians were more akin to our Senate and the Plebeians were more akin to our House of Representatives. The British government with its House of Lords and House of Commons is similar to our government.
Finally, You don't seem to realize that the Senators were never meant to be voted on by the people directly. We are a representative government. Do you understand what that means? Have you ever seen those funny videos where people go out and ask Joe Citizen simple questions? Like, how many colors make up the flag, what is the name of the vice president, who is the speaker of the house, etc., and they can't even answer these simple questions. Why does their vote matter? These people are actually a danger to you because their vote can be bought, or unduly influenced by those with an agenda that may not be in your best interest. This was part of the thinking behind allowing states governments to vote for a Senator of their choosing.
Since it is the job of these people to understand the needs of the state, this was their chance to place 2 people into our federal government that would represent the needs of the state. In other words, the House was to be the voice of the people and the Senate was to be the voice of the state's governments. This is why there are two Senators for every state, and why the number is not set by the population of the state. It gives protections to small states so that states like California, New York, Texas and Florida can't dictate to them how they will run their states.
In other words, what you don't seem to understand is that the House of Representatives was to be the voice of the common man. The voice of all citizens within each representatives' district. The Senate was not intended to be an equal voice. If this was the intention, why wouldn't they simply be part of the House of Representatives?
You are an intelligent man, but please...please educate yourself as to why the people are safer in a Republic than they are in a Democracy. If you do understand everything that I have written here, I question your motives.
Tweaking some things in the Constitution, such as undoing things that were never meant to be, is one thing. For instance, it was never the intention that illegal immigrants could get citizenship for their children, and thus for themselves, by simply having a baby here while they are here illegally. So altering this to reflect the initial intentions is fine.
However, undoing the framework of the constitution that protects to some measure, minorities and states with small populations is in a word, ABSURD.
If anything, we need alterations to the amendments that have allowed the federal government out of it's cage. For those that don't understand this, the Constitution was designed to keep the federal government in a cage with limited powers, to keep safe the individual rights of the citizens, and to keep safe the rights of the states. It was never meant for our federal government to have the overbearing power that it does today.
For those who don't know, the largest way the federal government exerts undue control over the states is by excessive taxes, which they then only give back to the state so long as it toes the line set by the federal government.
Rusty – Commies don't want a Republic. They want a "democracy" – the absolute worst for of government. "Democracies "always trend downward to the Worst Elements, as the Founding Stock degrades. Certain bands of highly exclusive ethnic parasites understand this, and have always made money on destruction.
Well Said!!!
Rusty,
First, well put. I was so bent out of shape listing to this "intelligent" man that I almost didn't make it through his two minute commentary before I was on the computer ready to put together the argument that you put together so well. I would only add two things:
1) State representation is key to this entire issue. People in California do not want to live like and be governed by people in Alabama. Nor do people in Georgia want to be governed by people in New York. Do not misunderstand me. I have lived in many parts of this country and for the most part have found all areas to be filled with thoughtful, caring people that generally want the same principled things. The difference is in what order we put those principles and what we consider our family's and community's best interest. We do not dislike people in other states but we understand that the further you put the people who make the decisions away from the actual circumstances in the home and communities the less likely they are to understand our points of view and needs/wishes. States rights must not be killed.
2) Do not underestimate Mr. Zakaria. He either is ignorant to our founding principles or disregards them. I believe it is the latter. I believe that he purposely misrepresented the need for state representation because he does not believe in it. What comes out of pure democracy, inevitably, is Oligarchy (a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people) followed by dictatorship (an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual) through unbalanced influence. Definitions included for those who need to be educated.
Our country and government has survived through balance of influence. So if anything, we need to eliminate some of the bull that we have put in place lately either through supposed "precedence" or growing our government to a size that has created a total lack of accountability to the states or its people. It is tiring to know that there are so many that could benefit by sitting through and actually listening to an 8th grade civics class. But don't be fooled, Fareed is not one of them. He just would rather this country be an Oligarchy with him having part of the influence.
Rusty – well said. I agree with you. In addition, I think there are a lot of people have the 'separation of church and state' wrong mostly because of media sound bytes.
Rusty, what a wonderful idea- only change the constitution in areas you want–tinkering with how and where the government administers its power–and pass off those you disagree with as unconstitutional or fundamentally irreconcilable with our founders. Yes, what a wonderful idea–give more power to the states... giving autonomy to the institutions that persisted Jim Crow laws more than 100 years after the abolishment of slavery and institutionalized racism (Or were these acts by the federal government–forcing policy upon the states to abolish slavery–unconstitutional too?).. Meanwhile, such laws had been abolished some decades, centuries earlier in most other western republics and constitutional monarchies.
But, your point with taxes are well taken–such is the case with medicare and medicaid funding deferred from the federal government to the states. But, this isn't an 18th or 19th century agrarian nation; becoming the the largest economy on Earth came in large part from exercising federal authority over it, post 1932; culminating in the postwar era.
But to precede.. everyone knows exactly what the banner of "state rights" really means. Yet, you claim to be against such regressive populism, claiming our government, or constitution, is arranged in such a way to adequately suppress it–then in the same breath you give way to the belief that amendments to strengthen state's rights and diminish federal rights are needed? Funny how the states can never do wrong in the eyes of the constitutionalists who are more fundamental than our founders.. i'd think this is as much a nationalist or anti-constitutional thought when held in such a way that the federal government is powerless to regulate and oversee state legislation–particularly in areas of social rights.
Dr. Matthew Brain,
What is this "banner of states rights" you speak of? Maybe, just maybe, people want to be governed by people living and working closer to their circumstances, not by people in some city that knows nothing (and generally does not care) about their problems.
Rusty, I ttotally agree with what you wrote. We are blessed to be in a republic and in spite of most elites and media keep telling us, we are not, and I hope never will, be a democracy.
Josh (thank you for not spelling my last name as "Brian"),
Not going to explain it in detail, i'm sure you know what i'm talking about.. "States' Rights" has been a code-word for such items as slavery, segregation, anti-civil rights' movements, and Jim Crow since our nations inception; and it pushes both paleoconservative & social conservative policies in recent times. We see state legislation limiting or restricting rights and behaviors which rarely have any impact on those who favor such politics; i.e.- gay marriage, media censorship, abortion, drug prohibition, state immigration laws, etc. I'd think these are issues not of anyone else's concern but those who engage in the respective and/or associated behavior and thus shouldn't be regulated by any level of government (not the federal government either)–but they are most popularly done so by paleoconservatives under the banner of states' rights. Ohio & voter restriction laws & abortion laws (state legislator subpoenaed a fetus); Georgia & Arizona on immigration laws, and Texas on drug laws are some recent examples. Yes, these states' rights issues don't represent an agenda as regressive as it once did–but nonetheless they are all engaging in limiting the freedoms of others on the premise of paleoconservative populism, which isn't any better nor worse than liberal populism (in my honest opinion of course).
It is a pity no doubt, that politicians use this cause to enact regressive policy–but you would be hard pressed to see any progressive policies take root in states, and implemented on the federal level (California & Massachusetts being recent exceptions). I'm all for deference of power to some extent–but not when such deference causes greater levels of negative externalities relative to the positive externalities enjoyed by their enactments.. Particularly and especially in the areas of social issues. The federal government ain't no saint in this issue either; but it has a better track-record at least. Anyway, this is a bit off topic, please re-read my original post... my reply was criticizing the double-standard of the original statement(s).
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
Rusty: So what do you propose regarding the 2 parts of the Constitution that most annoy me - to wit, the electoral college (with which Mr. Zakaria seemed to share my view) and the 2nd amendment, so terribly outdated and with such disastrous consequences for civil society?
I agree with your well-presented points on our representative form of government. I'd like to see this issue (pure democracy vs. republic) discussed / debated on GPS. You have a great talent for clear writing (I've written manuals and recognize your ability). It's a shame, though, that you repeatedly insulted Fareed's intelligence–he doesn't understand much of anything, according to you. If you 'understood' how to write a response with some courtesy, I think you'd be a lot more effective in persuading people. This is meant to be constructive feedback so please don't take offense.
I totally and completely agree with you Rusty. I am flabbergasted at the apparent lack of understanding of the Constitution and the purpose of the Senate and House, and the balance of power between the 3 branches of government that Mr. Zakaria seems to lack. Unfortunately, the Constitution has been recently corrupted by people who feel they are above the law, and do not trust the majority of people and the arrogance is amazing. If we continue to not voice our opinions we will deserve what we get. To think that the Constitution needs to be redone and we need to 3 new Amendments is ignorance at its greatest. Some people need to take a Civics course or two. It is shocking how uninformed you seem to be Mr. Zakaria.
I want to thank you Rusty and everyone else on here for your comments. I'm a college student and I really appreciate hearing your guys really educated insight. You guys are the reason I like reading the comments section.
Hey I agree with you that senate should not be voted for, this was original intent, many things you mention are very true, I am not american, but I am Christians, and before the Greeks, or Romans the Bible had lade out the principles of goverments over 800 years prior to Greeks. It was not greeks who came up with these Ideas, through history countries have borrowed Ideas from the others and then taking credit for its Ideas.
First that state that Senate was not voted for was the Bible, visit the book of Deuteronomy. When Moses had taught that people we should have representatives from each tribe, it did not matter how large the tribe was, each tribe had same amount, these were not voted for they where Oppointed. other representatives where base on population size.
The bible is really inspiration of good goverments.
Rusty,
It's a relief to see that there are people who understand that our government was deliberately, not accidentally, created to be a republic. I have been concerned with how over the years the media has tried to change our viewpoint from appreciation of our republic to a democracy.
If anyone, such as Mr. Zakaria, believes that we should be a democracy, I would suggest that not only that civics class that someone else recommended but also a French Revolution lesson. Do we really want the same kind of government as the French finally ended up with? Our electoral college was a stroke of sheer brilliance in balancing the needs of smaller states to be represented against the majority of larger states. Majority rules is not representation. Neither is minority rules representation, which is why as Rusty points out we have both a Senate and a House of Representatives.
As for the suggestion of revising our Constitution, I must agree with Rusty, Mr. Zakaria. If you understand our Constitution and our Bill of Rights (including its Preamble which is so often left out of printings), then I also must question your motives in such a suggestion. Our Constitution as it stands is worth fighting for and protecting just as much today as when our Founding Fathers wrote it.
Last, I sincerely hope we can over the course of the next few years re-educate people, especially the current generation of school children, about the treasure that our Constitution is, those who fought to create it and protect it, and those who continue to protect it and our freedom. If American civic classes aren't teaching about our Constitution, government branches, and our history, I would recommend Patriot's Handbook by George Grant. For one thing, it has the missing preamble to the Bill of Rights, which explains our Founding Fathers' purpose in the Bill of Rights. I would additionally recommend American RoundTable Policy for anyone who is interested in hearing about current politics from a point of view independent from political parties.
Brilliant response Rusty. I'm not an American citizen but have studied the US Constitution for many years and have grown to understand and love the inspired principles and laws contained therein. I always bind the essence of human rights and the conceptual limits of government with the Declaration of Independence to the statements of the Constitution and view the two as inseparable. The Constitution should not be amended beyond the original intent of the founders, for we have today a "living document", I am convinced the term "living" is a misnomer and is causing the "demise" of liberty (freedom from government) and freedom (freedom from another entity whether human or corporate or government).
Matthew Brain,
First, you should read up on what actually happened before the Civil War. Also read the actual Declarations that several of the seceding states wrote. This notion that the Civil War was about state rights is correct on some levels but you as well as many others have it backwards. Many northern states, including my home state of Ohio were passing laws. State's Rights laws if you will. Laws that said that they did not have to return runaway slaves, as per federal law. Federal law said that the state had no right to dictate it's own standards in this case. The south didn't secede because of state's individual rights being violated, they were seceding because federal law was being violated and with the election of a Republican President, they did not see this situation getting any better.
The intent of the Constitution was to preserve a situation where the country was not one homogenous entity. This is exactly why the federal government's role was spelled out so plainly and all other rights were left to the people and the states.
It is a very biased view to think that state's rights is some devious cloak to cover a desire for racism. Do not seek to define the intent of others, nor the feelings in their heart. The "state's rights banner" is not about anything devious. It is about exactly what a few others pointed out to you. And it is exactly what the founders wanted. Because local governments are more responsive to the needs of the local population. Centralized power has never been good for the people.
Don't allow the past to cloud your judgment. Within 100 years of Islam being created, they had conquered most of Christendom and had moved into Spain, France, Sicily, Southern Italy and threatened to topple what was left of the Byzantine Empire. The world was very different back then. It was more brutal. This was world wide. Every ancient civilization had elements that we see as barbaric today. Every last one of them. Slavery was one of them and this existed in every corner of the world. It still does in some countries.
This country has moved well beyond that. Was it painful to do so? Sure. Mostly because of the way in which it was carried out. Also, in this instance, the salves were almost universally black while the local population was not. A freed African slave in an African country could blend in much better. A white slave in a country where the majority are white, could blend in better.
My economics professor is from Slovakia. He made the statement that in the many countries where he tried to settle down, it was made clear to him that he would never be a true citizen. But in America, even though he was not even yet a legal citizen, he is treated as though he IS an American. I have lived in several countries, and I have seen this to be true. If you never left this country and listened to the media, you are left with the impression that we have huge racial problems, or that we are many years behind the rest of the world in this regard. This simply isn't true. If anything, the United States, because of it's growing pains, has evolved into the single most diverse nation on Earth. The fact that you can point to a few lunk heads who refused to evolve means nothing. You will always have elements in any society who seek to blame their problems on somebody else. Like KKK or Black Panther types. Those who refuse to acknowledge that the rest of us have moved well beyond their limited thinking.
Some people see a monster in every closet, or under every bed. The point is, however, that the Constitution was specific. Any and all powers, not given to the federal government are the domain of the state. This is good for the people because it allows the people better access to the leaders who have the most power over their lives.
Stop chasing bogeymen and deal with the real danger. A government that is very powerful, and at the same time indifferent to your concerns. We are getting too close to that as it is. Centralized power looks good on paper but is disastrous in practice. It's inefficient, and it is increasingly indifferent to your concerns. It's also easier to control by the wealthy elite. What's easier to control, one centralized government? Or many diverse and wide spread governments? The answer is simple.
A nation of diverse states is also safer for a minority. Think of it like this. As part of the nation as a whole, Blacks are what, 14, 16, 18%? But what if the majority moved to one state? They could in effect become the overwhelming majority. With the power of state's rights, they have more power to look at for themselves. If the government is centralized, this would be no protection at all because moving to one state would offer no change in their situation. In other words, without state's rights, you can't find a better life for yourself, one where the state better fits what you want from a government, if each state does not have it's own identity.
This is why so many Empires and large countries have fractured over time. Centralized governments are not efficient and are unable to cater to diverse opinions. You see, state's rights also helps preserve the union because you don't have people from California dictating law to people in New York, or people in Massachusetts dictating to people in North Dakota, or people in Florida dictating to people in Texas. Look at the many smaller countries that have fractured in the last few decades. Czechoslovakia is now Slovaki and the Czech Republic. Yugoslavia is now several smaller countries. Even the U.K. is likely to dissolve as there is a push for independence in Scotland. So how is it that we have held this large nation together for so long? The very things that many of you are clamoring against. The electoral college, that allows even very unpopulated states to feel like they are relevant. More importantly is the fact that country isn't thus controlled by only a handful of states. It has been discussed among experts that if the electoral college goes away, if it is literally decided one man one vote, the presidential candidates will be able to totally ignore many smaller states because this move will cause them to become not less relevant, but irrelevant. That is sowing the seeds for disaster.
It's amazing that our first presidents were voted on by the common man and yet the country did just fine. Senators were not voted on by the common man but appointed by their state legislators. Now think about that. He doesn't have to go out and take campaign money from corporations. He has to convince the local politician that you voted in. A politician that doesn't care about what is going on with Chevy, or G.E., he cares about what is going on in Clyde, Ohio, for instance.
The simple fact is that these aren't outdated concepts, the constitution is not outdated nor are these issues that some have. In fact, they are fortress walls that have protected and preserved the nation and people. They continue to do so today, even with the many ways in which the federal government has been able to circumvent limitations to their power.
If anything needs to be fixed, it is things like the "Commerce Clause" which is the single most abused part of the Constitution and one that the fed constantly uses to circumvent the limitations on it's power. The fed now simply raises an excess in taxes, then doles it out to the states that play ball. It's not a new concept. This has been used by kings and tyrants throughout history to control the "nobles."
"Jeremiah
Rusty: So what do you propose regarding the 2 parts of the Constitution that most annoy me – to wit, the electoral college (with which Mr. Zakaria seemed to share my view) and the 2nd amendment, so terribly outdated and with such disastrous consequences for civil society?"
First, I wonder why you have problems with these two parts of the constitution. First, let's deal with the easy one. Why do you want to give away your freedom? What moral right do I have to tell you that you can't defend yourself. A gun is a tool and like any tool, it can be used for good purposes, or bad purposes. More people are killed by the misuse of automobiles, so should we outlaw those also? Of course not, that would be absurd, right? Well so is telling some 5'2", 110 pound woman that she has no right to a tool that equalizes her power against a man that is 6'3 and 250 pounds of raw muscle. What, the police are hear to protect us? My brother in law will tell you that he is not here to protect you, he is here to tag your tow after being called to the crime scene. And don't think for a second that guns are the only way to kill somebody. Outlawing guns won't change this, and in fact, countries where guns were outlawed, the statistics don't support the notion of the people being safer with no legal access to guns. Statistics actually show that those who legally own a gun are actually far less prone to violence. And areas that outlawed guns have the highest crime rates. Why? Simple...crooks like an easy target. Even if you are twice the size of another man, are you more likely to attack him if you know he is carrying a gun, not sure if he is, or know he isn't? Like it or not, gun ownership is a moral right. An individual right. And for every instance where you can point to guns being used to commit a crime, I can point to ten where guns were used to prevent a crime. Untold are the number of crimes never even attempted because the crooks feared the victim was armed. Read the story about Kitty Genovese, who returned home from working at a bar in New York, at 3:15am, saw a suspicious man walking toward her, and so she tried to make her way to a police call box, but never made it. The man stabbed her. Not once, but many times during three attacks over a period that spanned over a half hour. Witnesses even saw it happening and shouted at the man to leave her alone, which is why it took 3 attacks to kill her. Nothing about the case matters except one thing. Had she had a gun in her purse, she would likely be alive today. It doesn't matter that witnesses saw it happening and didn't call the police. What if nobody heard her first scream and woke up? Could they call the police then? Never mind that her first scream came when it was too late. He was stabbing her by then. She would have never been stabbed. According to the police reports, she realized she was in danger when the man was far enough away which is why she tried to make her way to a call box. So if she has a gun, she reaches into her purse, pulls it out and tells the guy to leave her alone or she will shoot him. If nothing else, it would have bought her time to get to the cal box.
This is before we even get to the notion that guns are also empowering to the people and helps them resist a tyrannical government. Anyone who thinks that you can't do this is not thinking clearly. Did our advanced weaponry help us in Vietnam? Not really. We lost. Iraqis with improvised weapons did a pretty job against a coalition of the world's best fighting forces. Same in Afghanistan. Afghan soldiers also defeated the Russians even though they were severely outgunned.
Bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment is your right. If you don't want that right, don't seek to take that right from those who do care about such things.
Now, as to the reason that the electoral college is important. It is simply protection. Protection for smaller states so that they are not cast aside as unimportant. If the electoral college goes away, then you may never see another president elected from outside of California, Texas, New York, Florida, or the next 6 most populated states.
here's something that isn't as popular of a notion though. The simple fact is that most people are unaware of simple facts that I think should be a prerequisite before even being allowed to vote. Why do most people vote for a candidate? Because somebody told them to. Simple as that. The largest danger of a pure democracy is that the population CAN and WILL be led by the nose by those who have the bully pulpit. This could be a religious leader, a reporter, etc... Anyone who has access to an audience can lead them by the nose, not if they are right but if they are convincing enough. The more you educate yourself to the facts, the less likely you are to be led by the nose. But many people do not bother to research any facts. Their favorite news channel says this guy is great, or their teacher, or professor, tells them the same...so they go vote for him.
This is also the reasoning behind the fact that the Senators weren't supposed to be voted on by the people. The people paid to understand the needs of the state were supposed to do that. This created a balance. The representatives in the state legislator and the Congress were your voice. The Senators were the voice of the state legislators that you voted in.
The system was weakened when this was altered.
"do you allow the children to vote and overrule you and your wife?"
I think that's what many of us are against, allowing there to be a mother and father of US grown adults. When the government decides it will be our "mom and dad", that's when there MUST be a change.
I just have to disagree with the concept that we are a republic, or ever have been a republic. Yes, we are a republic in the sense that our votes are not done by mob rule, etc. But, the key difference between what we are and a Republic is the fact that we don't view everyone as equal. Only until the past 40 years, have we actually given all citizens the right to vote. You can't be called a Republic if such a huge portion of the population isn't allowed to participate in the first place.
Then from there, came the idea of lobbying and campaign finance. Now, we're not mob rule, but money rule. Whoever gets the most money and can run the best ad campaign for themselves and convince the biggest portion of the public that they are great has the best chance of winning. Then they spend half their term thanking the people who helped them to get the seat in the first place.
We have better been described as a plutocracy/oligarchy, where the richest are in power and use their vast power to set up a system that benefits them no matter which party wins. It's all a charade. Republicans really seed power to the wealthy, then when we get fed up with it, we vote in a democrat that does the same thing and totally ends any chance of a drastic change in the system. Look at all the lefties who are anti-war/big business...now that Obama's doing the same thing, they've been completely silenced. I hate what this place has become, it really is a shame.
Selling assets will only provide a one-time payment to the government, which is *completely useless* over the long-term. We require both consistent growth, and higher revenues.
The recent passing, in Florida of drug testing for entitlement recipients caused me to imagine the possibility of removing the right to vote from entitlement recipients. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said 'once the people realize they can vote themselves a wage increase democracy is doomed'.
There was a time when only land owners could vote. They were invested board members of the company/country.
If one pays no taxes should they have a right to control spending through votes?
It seems an amendment to prevent this would have far reaching effects.
So if you lose your job and draw unemployment or end up on the street, you won't be allowed to vote anymore? Are you paying attention to the unemployment situation right now? Are you even considering the repercussions of this?
Three suggested amendments:
1. Only singular human beings are citizens. Not corporations. This would include funding of elections by tax dollars–or at minimum, no more lobbyists allowed. None! and no corporate donations to elections. Donations only by individual US citizens.
2. One citizen, one vote. No more electoral college.
3. Congressional changes: Congress cannot vote themselves pay raises. they must pay into Social Security and not have the pensions and medical plans that they now enjoy. they must purchase their own healthcare and retirement plans–like the rest of us. and no swinging. Doors between the corporations and Congress.
My comments: Our system has become corrupt, controlled by big money. If we reform the system, including the misuse of filibusters, perhaps we can come back to the rule of law and government by the majority. A democratic government cannot operate when filibusters–or the minority–rules.."
Fareed -
Given what you said about Iceland, and with respect to some of the prior suggestions let me add:
1)We should require that all donations/funding of politicians and political legislation be only made by citizens, and gifts or proposals for legislation should also be considered donations. Furthermore, all such contributions must be made public. I personally don't care if a famous people give millions of dollars to a campaign for or against a candidate or piece of legislation, but I would very much like to know that they did. Too many people hide behind coporations advocating legislation or legislators which they would not personally back if they had to be public about it. Such people should put their mouths where their money is. Also, while I would not want interested individuals barred from suggesting legislation, I would like the thousands of pages of bills created by and for corporate interests to be curtailed.
2) And on a similar note, all legislation should be made public (presumably on the internet) with sufficient time (say 1 page per day) for anyone who is interested to read and react to the proposed legislation. Similarly, all subsequent changes should have the same waiting period. I believe this would have the effect of reducing the amount and size of legislation in addition to the number of special provisions in legislation (earmarks).
3) We don't need an amendment to the constitiution to effectively get rid of the electorial college for presidential elections. All we need is the top 11 states (or enough to meet the 270 electorial college limit) to all pass legislation that says they will, when sufficient states pass similar legislation, agree to have their electorial college representatives vote for the winner of the popular vote of the entire country, regardless of how their state citizens actually voted. I didn't think this up, but I think it is a good idea.
FIRST: Rusty (and anyone else), Fareed asked for 3 ideas...not a disertation. Really, don't you think Mr. Zakaria knows the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. Let's give specific ideas/amendments so the results can be evaluated and reported on.
Three suggested amendments:
1. Only singular human beings are citizens...not corporations. Funding of elections through tax dollars paid on individual tax filings and distributed evenly. While we're at it, let's make it a 6-week run-up to the elections like the Brits...not over 18 months.
2. One citizen, one vote. No more electoral college.
3. Congressional changes: TERM LIMITS ! Congress cannot vote themselves pay raises, they must pay into Social Security, they must purchase their own healthcare and retirement plans–like the rest of us.
LASTLY:
The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes - 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
You and I agree on all three changes...but I say do away with the IRS and go to a Federal Sales tax on all sales and services. No more tax deadlines and no more lobbists.
I thought about that too and I agree. It would be in out best intrest. soon enough the people we are going to start collecting.
UMMMM no we should NOT i lived in Iceland for 2 years and it is A SHAT HOLE. enough said Later
More typical nwo type gibberish from CNN. No doubt the obama admin is behind this. Sorry but i already have my constitution, yours means nothing to me.
Don't mess with the US consitution!!!!! Who are you!!! Why do you think, Fareed!!! you know better than our founding fathers?? You are an anti-American idiot. It's very obvious!! Go away!!!!!!!!!
To be as ignorant not to consider things that are completely outdated and don't work at all when there may be a disconnect between the needs of the country and the document seems ludicrous.
The majority of the consitution is fabulous, but discussion around a small percentage of the constitution would benefit us as a country.
Sorry but even I would run circles round our founding fathers today with the hindsight if history!
Actually I think it makes sense to amend the Constitution to deny citizenship to those children born in the US to illegal immigrants. By far the US Constitution is a masterpiece but some clarification is in order in other areas.
The 28th Amendment
The Congress and Senate shall make no laws that do not equally apply to them, nor any laws that apply to them and not the American people.
I totally agree.
Wow, my friend, don't fear change, life is fluid and so is the constitution, it was created by the founding fathers to be adapted and revised
WRONG! FAIL. Get OUT.
Barry what do you think the Founding fathers would think of what the US government has aborted into?I'm pretty sure they would are rolling over in their graves right now with how utterly messed up it has become and I'm pretty sure if they were alive today they would be leading the charge for changes.
Our constitution, as the bible, was written by man based on contemporaneous knowledge. We now know (most of us!) that the earth wasn't created in 6 days, etc. With the application of current wisdom to the constitution, and without changing the basic principals upon which our country was founded, we should update it to reflect modern realities. Founding fathers didn't conceive (a) the costs of elections and the resultant stranglehold by lobbying powers on the best practices of governance; (b) the rise of elected royalty, continuing in office without limit and delegating benefits to themselves unavailable to their constituents; (c) the confusion of unbridled access to weaponry with "a well regulated militia;" (d) the superfluous nature of the electoral college.
FAIL. Get out and go back to where you came from – Alien.
In response to Denise's comment that I should get out!?!? I guess this type of well reasoned response should be expected from one who believes the world was craeted in 6 days.
Between the government and private corporations, the Constitution does not protect the people in too many regards. The meaning of the laws of the past have been exploited, and thus, do not protect us. We need clear, concise language regarding the rights of the individual, which have been severely weakened in the name of terrorism, technology, among other things.
Fareed is American and he has the right to air his views on the American constitution.
Does the American constitution face challanges vis-à-vis the complexities of modern life? Does it need to be rewritten?
A constitution is a written document or statue outlining the basic laws or principles by which a country or organization is governed.
The Constitution of the United States of America contains seven articles and twenty six amendments, which has been in effect since its adoption in 1789.
There are two mainstream ways to view the constitution. One rigid way is to stick to it as closely as possible, word by word. The other democratic way is to let it be guided by the people, reflecting their world views and values of the society. In America questioning the validity of the constitution is very often marked by a ferocious debate, which sometimes divides the country.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madision from Paris on September 6, 1789, suggesting that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years, as this world belongs to those who live in it and they should be ruled by the dead.
“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past”, were his words of wisdom.
In the United Kingdom, the motherland of the United States, before it gained independence, there is no formal constitutional document as in most western countries. Yet the British constitution is embodied in cases, statutes, prerogatives and established practices known in the past.
A few historical acts like the Magna Carta of 1215, the Petition of Right 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 have been serving as sources of rule of law in modern democracies. The Act of Settlement 1701 and a number of parliament acts in the last century helped the Brits apply law based on precedents.
While voices are loud in America for a new constitution, there are opponents who maintain that, the U.S. Supreme Court is an institution which reviews the intricacies of constitutional law vis-à-vis their modern and ever changing society. Indeed very few countries in the world have a constitutional supreme court and the American one has dealt with a number of high-profile cases, which not only helped improve the daily lives of many Americans but also found their way into law-books overseas.
What I find difficult to accept is the life tenure of the judges. It would serve the constitution more if they are entitled to a timely retirement instead of staying in office till the day they die.
Correction: THEY SHOULDN'T BE RULED BY THE DEED! (Thomas Jefferson's letter to James Madison)
Does the American constitution need to be rewritten? Here is a view from an outsider in Europe.
A constitution is a written document or statue outlining the basic laws or principles by which a country or organization is governed.
The Constitution of the United States of America contains seven articles and twenty six amendments, which has been in effect since its adoption in 1789.
There are two ways to view a constitution. One rigid way is to stick to it as closely as possible, word by word. The other liberal way is to let it be guided by the people, reflecting their world views, the values and the dynamics of the society.
In America questioning the validity of the constitution is very often marked by a ferocious debate, which sometimes divides the country.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madision from Paris on September 6, 1789, suggesting that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years, as this world belongs to those who live in it and they shouldn’t be ruled by the dead.
“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past”, were his words of wisdom.
Over the entrance of the Yale Law School, one can read the carved inscription that says, “LAW IS A LIVING GROWTH, NOT A CHANGELESS CODE”.
In the United Kingdom, the motherland of the United States, before it gained independence, there is no formal constitutional document contrary to most western countries. Yet the British constitution is embodied in cases, established practices, statutes and prerogatives known in the past.
A few historical acts like the Magna Carta of 1215, the Petition of Right 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 still serve as sources for the rule of law in our modern democracies. The Act of Settlement 1701 and a number of parliament acts in recent years help the Brits apply constitutional law based on precedents.
Back in America, now and then voices are loud for a new constitution. Some opponents maintain that the U.S. Supreme Court is an institution which reviews the intricacies of law vis-à-vis the challenges of an ever changing and complex society. True, in most cases everybody in the United States can challenge the constitutionality of a law. When the state courts fail to deliver a satisfactory ruling then the parties can turn to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final verdict.
Indeed very few countries in the world have a constitutional court and the U.S. Supreme Court had dealt with a number of high-profile cases, which not only helped the American society evolve but also found their way into law-books overseas. Most European states have a control mechanism that checks on their constitution.
Whether the U.S. constitution needs to be rewritten, is up to the American people to decide. It is regarded as the world’s oldest working constitution and it would involve years to rewrite it and have people get used to it. Another way to circumvent it is to allow the justices in the state and federal courts more freedom to interpret it in light of the changing circumstances of the society.
What I find difficult to accept is the life tenure of the justices in the U.S. Supreme Court. It would serve the constitution better if they are entitled to a timely retirement instead of staying in office till their last breath.
I believe that the US Constitution should at least seriously be looked at regarding possible updating and any possible updates, if found, should be honestly debated. However, I do not believe any of our elected (or appointed) officials are selfless enough or uncorrupted enough by special interest groups to do the job.
The most important amendment to save our democracy----- Congress and the states will regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company or other corporate entity.
Insert "unions" here also.
I'd like to see term limits for senators and reps and make it mandatory for them to shop for health insurance as the rest of us. And while I'm at it: have them receive the same social security as the rest of us.
We already have term limits.....they're called elections.
In our elections we have no choice. The Dems are just as bad as the Reps.
They are all respnosible for the problems of today.
Elections that heavily favor those already present because those in office receive high amounts of money to fund their elections when they've voted for anything and everything that favors those giving them the most amounts of money
Agreed, and may I remind some that they are not limited to Democrats and Republicans. Also, if you don't like how things are GET INVOLVED to change it.
Elections as term limits presupposes a level playing field.
First, each candidate must have the same amount of money. We know this to not be true.
Of even greater import if abolishing gerrymandering. It should be the voters selecting the candidates, not the candidate selecting his\her voters.
This, the idea of a constitutional congress, is immensely difficult. There are huge trust issues to overcome. Each state would have to elect special delegates they felt might appropriately represent them. A question will arise fairly quickly and that is whether the geographic boundaries still make sense. Or do we end up like the Soviets. If we decide to remain as we are then two quick changes, out with the electoral college and that shameful piece making our African brothers and sisters 3/5ths human. Then a clear statement of what weaponry remains under the control of the military and out of the hands of the civilian population. We should then declare our borders and pull back into them releasing all territories and foreign military bases as unconstitutional foreign entanglements. The protection of those borders is THE federal mandate. In todays age, federal referendums should be common. They should be constitutionally encouraged.
The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes - 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
How about some Teddy Roosevelt "Square Deal" principles?
1. Protection from powerful corporate and labor interests through campaign finance reform
2. Environmental protection measures
3. Guaranteed health care coverage
I agree 100%!
I agree but would add that all campaigns should be publicly financed by the taxpayer, period. I do think we should have an upper age limit for serving in government because cognitive functioning declines with age, attitudes become rigid and unamenable by facts. I would like to see us go back to the fairness doctrine so that we don't have just 5 people deciding what information the american people should know. In Canada, it is illegal for newscasters to lie on the air. I think that is a good thing....the truth is what makes us free.
Win. See if the present day Republicans have the gall to defy the inventor of the "big stick"
Not that I agree with all Teddy Roosevelt had to say, but it is surely true that his was a day when "The Republican Party" meant an entirely different thing.
Less government, Please! The answer is not more of the same, but less of the poison. Why do you think more laws and more regulation, can help these issues. We have a raft load, as is....................still we need more? You can't bully a free people into responding the governments agenda, without push back or even a revolt.
The founders never knew about the concept and especially the influence of lobbyists. I would term limit Congress to the same term limits as the President, and I would abolish lobbying. Every problem America has can be traced back to the influence of lobbying and to the limitless power that lifetime Congressional members have.
Easy one. Stagger our elections. Every month a new one should be held somewhere. The entire nation spends over half its otherwise productive time crippled by the soap opera our elections have become.
Right on
Good idea.
YES. Thank you, my new North Carolinian friend. Greetings from the great state of Wisconsin.
However, I think it will take a bit more than simply staggering elections to beat out the flames of media circus from our democratic republic. It would help, but with big national processes such as the Presidency, perhaps an additional abolishment of the current primary system, campaign finance reform (to limit the flashiness of it all), and (at the grassroots level) each of us voicing our dislike and spreading that opinion.
Hello fareed,
Just watched your show w/vmr. Reich & mr. Warren. I think the answer to our economic problems is comprised of elements of both of their responses. However I don't believe we will ever achieve a solution to our economic problems until we can adopt a sincere attitude towards and understanding of sustainable economics. The GROWTH economy concept must be shelved. As the most influential species on the planet – our survival depends upon a sustainable economy.
Unrestricted growth pretty much describes what happens with cancer cells. Do we really want the USA to turn into India? resources are finite. Small is better.
common sence
Knights tEMPLAR
Your topic today offered some very good ideas for thought. My three top suggestions are: 1) Eliminating the single-member district voting system in favor of proportional representation; 2) Firewalling the Bureaucracy from lobbying and interest groups; 2) Allowing the president to make appointments (judges, ambassadors, members of the cabinet, etc), without advise and consent from the Congress.
Jamie P. Chandler, Political Science Professor, Hunter College
I meant to say the advice and consent of the Senate.
I don't think I would go so far as to eliminate advice and consent on judges, but I would eliminate the possibility of a filibuster and require that the Senate provide an up or down vote on all judges which leave office during the term of the president.
The Republicans are playing a hold game on the positions open hoping they will have the President and the Senate in 2012. The President, whoever he is, has the right under the constitution to fill these positions and the Senate has the responsibility to provide advice and consent, not to delay/filibuster until the minority has control again. The system was never meant to work the way it has evolved into.
I could agree with allowing Executive branch staff to serve at the Presidents solutions, but at a minimum I would remove the possibility for filibuster and require that the Senate do it's job of advice and consent, not delay.
I meant Presidents selection.
Hey FAREED, you foriegn RAGHEAD – Finland is a teeny tiny country, with a homogenious WHITE population. A common genetic base, and a common history. The USA has over 300 million people – millions of whom are illegal – and like millions of LEGAL foriegners – are here to TAKE, not BUILD. The situation in Finlnd and the USA are not equivalent, you subversive scumsucker. You and the other foriegn ALIENS are the problem – NOT the Constitution, so YOU can get the EFF out of MY Nation, created BY and FOR the WHITE ANGLO SAXON FOUNDING STOCK. Take that God-d-mned litlte Jew troll Reich with you, back to whatever hole YOU crawled out of. Jews created the financial meltdown in Finland – just like they have, everywhere else.I hope the Finns purge the Tribe. Get your filthy hands off MY costitution, you sh!tskinned sand n!gger POS.
I think your point could have been expressed without all the childish and racist insults
Well – I am sick. I came down with a cold this am, and am exceptionally short-tempered. Not an excuse -a reason. So – I do apologize for the naked hostility – as I suppose it's not a good idea to "spook the horses". However – what I wrote is true. and as far as "racist" goes -this is a discussion that desperately needs to begin, in earnest, instead of being squelched, and "shamed". Do you know who invented the wrod "racist" – and WHY? I'll be happy to enlighten you – so just ask.
I am sick to death of non-Americans lecturing Americans on what americans should to do accomodate THEM. Farred may be an American Citizen – but he's not an American. He is a Brown Muslim. THAT is NOT "American" – legla citizenship not-with-standing.
I am aslo sick ot DEATH of American invasion, in othger countires, wasting lives and treasure, tryng to force others to BE Americans. It's a disaster al the way around. Jefferson instructed us NOT to do these things – and look at us now. Our malicious and destructive attmepts at Empire are a huge , huge reason for our prewsent dire financial situaiton – and every-on on this monring's panel knows it.
The USA was created by White Christians. The USA was created by White Christians. The USA Constitution is a RESULT of White Christian genetics. Genetics CREATE culture – not the other way around. I'll cite the entire history of the world, if you need examples. There's nothing magical about land; The Land is the People. The USA represents the pinnacle of White Christian culture, and White Christian culture has done very well for the millions of Non-White Christians, so desperate to benefit from the mores and results of White Christian culture – as the entrants into American society need to understand But won't. You do appreciate the bitter paradox of millions of diverse (and incompatible) people. demanding to be "let in" – and then demanding that changes be made to please them, don't you? I'm SICK of it.
Alas – as the demographics of the USA change – the culture will, as well. These changes are well underway – and extremely deleterious to the welfare of the Nation. It's inevitable -and the faster people understand this reality – the sooner policies can be enacted to try to preserve the best elements of White Christian culture, to benefit the whole. I doubt this can actually happen, though; I think the USA will split apart along racial/ethnic lines. As per the whole of human history. Demography is destiny.
Finaly – I don't need some bloody foreign RAGHEAD smarmily snarliky lecturng America to change the essential document that's made America America. If I'm "childish and racist" – what is HE?
Mark – P.S – I still stand by every word of my original post. That's the way it's gonna roll, in the end – so acclimate yourself starting now, to the future.
Okay, maybe we need a Constitutional Right to Therapy! Some of these comments make one wonder. But I guess that's what happens when we let everyone engage in GPS.
+1 on the Constitutional Right to Therapy (esp. for this guy!!)
Wash Your Mouth Out With LAVA Soap!
—Mayflower Descendant
Gordie, ya castrati – I'd like to see ya try to make me. THAT would be amusing.
Hey, Gordie: two brothers from my family were there too (not among the Puritans, but whatever). And while I don't think this makes me any more qualified to comment on the thougths and expressions of another citizen (such as Fareed Zakaria), I figured you might think so.
In any event, the whole point of crossing that ocean and seeking out new lands was to remake the world, not just once, but continuously. Choosing to build a "city upon the hill", doing something for oneself in escaping religious persecution, moving to a new land where land was for the claiming instead of just for the wealthy: these were the actions of the bold, who were not only unafraid of change, but willing to be the ones to drive it.
Um...well...shit, I didn't realize this was in response to the original post by Denise. I thought it was a general response to the suggestion to revise the Constitution in general.
And for that I apologize and would like to..."revise and extend my remarks".
I still think that claiming specialized knowledge or weight in discussion simply on a matter of parentage is questionable, unless directly relevant. However, looking at Denise's post, I can see where you were coming from.
I am sorry Denise, that you have found yourself thinking this way. Xenophobia makes the world a scary place, and the hatred you harbor must make life a terrible strain for you. I wish you well on the road to recovery.
What country did your forfathers come from, AH.........?
...from England where the White Christians were persecuting my people; they pulled up stakes, jumped aboard the Mayflower and landed in Massachusetts in November 1620. Much later these so-called White Christians began claiming America was started by them. Well, excuse me, they were a day late and a dollar short.
Being a Mayflower Descendant simply gives me more responsibility, that's all. Oh, and washing a foul-mouthed person's mouth out with LAVA soap - the problem here is that she'd eat the whole bar of LAVA and ask for more.
Wow, you need some love and affection in your life, along with some history lessons. The Barbers came to america to escape persecution and to have opportunities to make a living, just like everyone else. Name calling doesn't make your point, it only makes you look primitive.
Laura – if you want to experience "primitive" – go to the Congo, where the swarthy indigenous inhabitiants have returned to consuming their traditional African diet staple – as in each other. Or go spend some quality time with Afghani goats farmers. Don't forget to bring your burkhas! (FYI – I actually respect Afghanis -as they are a brutal, self-confident tribal people – who have managed to kick every other so-called "Super-Power "out, century after century. Good on them!)
Meanwhile – toddle off and bake some cookies. But get us all some sandwiches and beer, before you start baking. Mmm'kay?
Denise,
You should get an enema. The toxic sludge coming out of you surely must be giving you at least a stomach ache. Who treated you so wickedly that left you with such vitriol?
The Constitution doesn't need updated, people (like you, Fareed) just need to
learn how to interpret and follow it properly. If people would stop
ignoring certain portions of it and interpreting certain portions of
it to suit their particular needs, we wouldn't have a problem.
Like religion right? which is why we dont kill our neighbor for working on a sunday!
or Saturday, depending on where you are. My community is predominately Seventh Day Adventtist, they would outlaw anything be done on Saturday, abolish holidays, etc.
My three amendments:
(1) no corporate political contributions
(2) budgets are set for two years and must be balanced
(3) taxes and minimum wages shall be set so that no one who works full-time makes more than ten times as much as anyone else
Like
So a Constitution developed when our Country had 4 million people is not applicable to our 400 million, but a process used by a country of 320,000 is? Get real. We are a Republic, not a pure democracy, and our institutions reflect this. The Constitution may not be perfect, but it works. Don't mess with it.
Yee Haw, John!
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). We have a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The Senate was established as the balance of the House of Representatives. The Senate exists to give the smaller states equal weight with the large one.s As someone from a small state the Senate plays a very important role. Everyone who even takes American Politics 101 knows this fact about the senate.
I agree with you. While I think there elements of the constitution which do need revision or clearer definition alerting the make up of Senate isn't one of them. I do, however, believe something should be done about that unconstitutional tool called the filibuster. Clearly the founders never expected the minority to have this level of power in the legislative branch.
I think that the surest way to improve our democracy is to require proportional gender representation. How can we have an effective republic if half of the population is barely represented? Make this one change and make a giant step towards a more fair and just society.
EXCELLENT suggestion!
Here is an idea. Run for office and/or stop voting for men if you want representation. Did you know that she also won the "oh so important" popular vote in the democratic primaries by 200,000. Didn't see any women riots in the streets about it. (or even a decent protest or news coverage). Why? What I have unfortunately seen over the years is a profound issue that women need to address. Many women do not trust other women because they are women.
Work on that.
Hilllary Clinton is the "She" in the statement about winning the popular vote in the democratic primary. Also, I would much rather had Ms. Clinton as Presidne tover our current President.
I would make it illegal for corporations to finance presidential candidates who should receive public funding. I would reduce the length and frequency of re-election campaigns. I would make it illegal for public servants to lie about facts. I would also make the electoral system more fair and based on population not state by state. For goodness sake the citizens of the capital city have no representation in congress!
H*ll YES, it's time to revise the Constitution! We can only suggest THREE changes? I can think of a heck of a lot more that are needed. The chief change should be in getting rid of the electoral college. Then mandatory term limits and public funding ONLY of elections for Congress. Third, we need to seriously address the reach of the Supreme Court given that their powers have gradually broadened well beyond the scope of what they should be, and when the members are clearly partisan. I'd also like to see an elimination of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court for a variety of reasons ranging from the potential for long-term consequences of rulings and/or an imbalance in Party appointments , to not taking into account the potential for dementia or limited mental capacity among elder members. We can start there although frankly, I like Iceland's idea of scrapping the whole thing and starting from scratch. There is no such thing as a "perfect" document, nothing from history is sacrosanct, and times change in ways that no Founding Father EVER could have possibly conceived of no matter how infallible and brilliant we may believe those men to have been.
The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes - 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
My thoughts are that of one viewing your constition from the outside ( I`m Canadian)
Firstly; the 12 smallest populated states should be reduced to 1 senator, and the 12 most populated states should have 3 senators.
Secondly; congressional seat boundries need to be determined by a non-partisan board employing logic. Jerrymongoring must be ended.
Thirdly; government must represent people above all else. Only individuals ( not corporations) should be alowed to donate funds for elections and only individuals living in within the boudries of the said election.
Ken – your first suggestion PROVES you don't know crap about U.S. History.
My recommendation for improving our own Constitution is to change the 14th amendment to include only 'natural' persons; this to deprive corportations of their current argument,and the basis of the recent Citizens United case, that they are people too and deserve all the rights of actual people as granted in our Constitution. Kent
I vote for this suggestion! Corporations are NOT individuals and do not deserve the same rights as same. Get Corps out of our government!
Fareed, I have a simple solution to the Electoral College problem. Insert language in the Constitution that says:
"Should there be a conflict between the Electoral College results and the popular vote, the popular vote shall take precidence".
This will enable us to avoid the situation we had in 2000 without having to go through the wrenching and nearly impossible process of abolishing the Electoral College.
What about primaries?
Some results for you:
Democratic primary 2008
Barack Obama
Popular vote 18,011,877
Hillary Clinton
Popular vote 18,223,120
or does this not fit your agenda?
Primaries are a concoction of the parties and the constitution doesn't speak of them and nor should it. The party system is completely outside of the boundaries of the constitution.
but doesn't it just burn you that your party does not practice what it preaches? and nobody says anything about it....
Great suggestion!
The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes - 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
good idea
I would specify "Separation of Church and State" in an constitutional amendment for those who fail to see it implied in the First Amendment. That would reduce the power of extremist Christians and get the government out of the marriage business. All government entities would issue Civil Union certificates and individual churches could decide who gets married in THEIR church as opposed to imposing their standards of morality nationwide. I use this analogy regarding imposing the religious views of only one sect upon a multicultural nation: What if the Hindus in America gained the power that the Christian Evangelicals have now and tried to outlaw the production and sale of meat? BTW, end tax-exempt status on churches to help balance the budget.
Fareed, The US Constitution, Written by the Rich for the Rich, is in severe need of revision. THREE revisions are necessary– [1] Free, equal Justice for all, [2] Free, equal Education for all, and [3] Free, equal Medical Care for all. Finally, we might get a Government of the People, by the People, for the People! Rather than our current system of a Government of the Rich, for the Rich. An obscenity - if ever there was one!
The United States needs only one major revision. Still, here are three:
RIGHTS OF PARTICIPATION: We need to replace the understood presumption of our Rights of Privacy with a crowdsourced set of guidelines for the critically important Rights of Participation that are the natural outgrowth of connectivity and interactivity. Such rights would allow for removable of the silliness of User Agreements and help us all understand what we sign on to as we become engaged in a virtual universe.
Two other needs for the Constitution:
GENERATIONAL CHARITABLE TRANSFER: Development of inheritance guidelines for ensuring that the massively rich who build their financial founding on public benefits return a large portion of the money to charitable purposes over a generation following their death. Our founders knew this was needed.
PREFERRED STATEMENT OF NEED FOR AN AMERICAN UNION: We cannot survive in a world where massive inequalities characterize the world between one country and its neighbors. Given the physical layout of the world, the Americas need to work together just as the EU is trying to do now.
I do not understand your third concept. It seems like you are saying we sould just annex Canada and Mexico since they all want to live in the US anyways? Is that the concept?
...I think that is what he was suggesting. If not the unification/cooperation between all the countries of the Americas, South and Central included.
I cannot deny that I have not thought of such a thing. The benefits could be enormous, if some kind of American Union could be pulled off without diluting any one member nation, and instead pulling everyone up and creating a powerful collective united in the revolutionary spirit of ALL the Americas (if you have not read any South American history, do so now, starting with colonization and moving onward. Simón Bolívar and José de San Martín...)
The Union could be much greater than the sum of its parts, and would not need to undermine national sovereignty, if created more like a coordinating body than a government.
I'd like to see a huge highway from the furthest tip of Canada down to the most Southern point of the lower continent....with no speed limits except the fact that if you drive slow, you will be run off the road. But that's just a personal thing.
What worries me is the equally enormous consequences were such a proposed Union to go sour.
I think I would be willing to take the risk in about 10 to 20 years, though, if and only if the participating nations could be convinced (NOT coerced) that it was a good thing. I wouldn't want any people forced against their will to join.
On the flip side, though, from a national-interest-of-the-United-States standpoint, we should remember that the one to create something, such as a Union or United Nations, can have more leverage in its structure and governing.
In such a plan we would be taking on responsibility for the well-being of many more people in abject poverty, and of nations which still today suffer from strong-man lawlessness and violence. This is a humanitarian crisis which the United States throughout history has mostly itself created in the course of meddling for our own benefit. That, however, is not the only reason I would consider such a concept of an American Union worth consideration.
It is also because, if done correctly, it would be in our benefit, he United States' benefit, Canada's benefit, Mexico's benefit, Argentina's benefit, Guatemala's benefit....everyone's benefit.
Plus, then we could call ourselves "Americans" without pissing off everyone else.
...
although it is highly improbable that this could be accomplished correctly. Personally, I would wait a few decades and at the right moment push for the change. I can feel that now is not that moment.
Perhaps it could start small, loose and informal, and then grow into the larger vision. That is how most things happen. They simply need to be facilitated.
Katherine -
We have already started, just look at NAFTA.
The constitution codifies the balance of power between the people, the states, and the federal government. It stands as a charter establishing which powers were delegated from the people to each echelon of government and the balance of powers between them and within them. The constitution describes how laws are written and enforced. The bulk of the conversations here speak to specfic legislation or agendas and not the balance of powers. Enshrining personal agendas or political perspectives is a sure recipe for endless civil war and struggle – see the Spanish constitution and their efforts at a functional government. UNEQUAL IS NOT UNFAIR AND UNFAIR IS NOT UNJUST. We learn this as children. Properity is not the natural state of mankind, suffering is. Success or prosperity is not a "zero sum game" – one man's success does not necessarily come at the expense of another.
The abolishment of the electoral college is a must in order to allow for votes to mean anything. It is useless for a conservative to vote in a state that always goes blue and the same goes for the opposite. A popular vote is a simple way to change this.
The second thing is something I like to call the 1/3 law. We have drifted away from representation and our congress members can not always be trusted to vote on behalf of their constituents. I would suggest that on issues that are highly controversial such as healthcare the people have a more solid say. If 1/3 of the Senate determine it need be than a bill should go to a public vote. Each district would hold a vote either in person or electronically (we have the technology) and what ever is the favorable vote will be the vote of that district's Senator by law. This will insure that on highly debated issue the people are represented, after all we are not voting these people in to do as they please but instead to represent us.
Lastly there would be some plan or amendment to abolish the two party system. A diversity of opinion is what made this country great in the first place and 2 opinions hardly constitutes as "diversity".
Cody, The only thing holding together our two party system is the Electoral College. The only way candidates can reign supreme on the number of electoral votes necessary to elect them is to limit the parties to two. Look what happened in the past when third parties or Independents made it all the way to election day. Those supporting them simply crippled one major party or another, but failed to elect them and put the less popular party in power. The best example of this is Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party attempt in 1912.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not protect the two-party system. It simply discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The only thing the current system does is to punish candidates whose support is broadly based.
Three things to consider are referendum, recall and term limits. The ability for the population to put something on the ballot, recall something we don't like and term limits are self explanatory.
Thank you for initiating a discussion on the U.S. Constitution. Several valuable books have promoted a rewrite, but historians tend to be their only readers. The Electoral College, an undemocratic body established for reasons that no longer exist, must be abandoned. We do need an Equal Rights Amendment as women continue to be second-class citizens in our own country. My third suggestion is the restructuring of the legislature under a unicameral system whose members are elected every four years, specifically the even-numbered years when there is no presidential election.
Dr. Dunlap,
While I fundamentally disagree with your suggestions relating to the electoral college and a one house body of government, I would like to expand on women in the US. First, to let you know what I believe. I believe that government cannot solve social ills. They may be able to set a tone through public speaking but legislation leads to more hate on both sides. Social ills will only be cured through interaction between the groups and education in the home (not in schools). Racism and sexism will not end because a government official say it be so. It will end through time and dying off of people who were educated and seperated in racist and sexist ways. Look at our current young generations. While I see racism dying (great thing), I see sexism growing. Because we stand silent about things like explotation of women in a sexual manner under the guise of empowerment, sexuality, and freedom of expression. We do not suppress these behaviors (successfully) through law. Instead we do it through scorn. Scorn of a behavior by a person you respect is the only thing that truly influences our bad behaviors, not laws and rules.
One other item. I truely and with heavy heart, see women hating other women too often for no other reason than they are women. I do not know if it is territorial behavior or poor teachings by parents but this is something that needs to be brought to light. Until this is overcome, women will not be equally represented.
Good Luck and may your God or lack of God bless you life.
The American voting system is completelly illogical and undemocratic, and it's time to change it to one person, one vote countrywide!
Should that apply only to the President or to members of the Senate and the House as well? Our system is effectively a cross where anyone and everyone can give money to candidates even if they can't vote for them. I would retain the Senate and House local districts but restrict campaign contributions to citizens (alive human beings, excluding corporations) who actually live in the State/District at the time of the contribution.
Recommended Amendment
Section 1
The right of the citizens of the United States to call for the removal from office of elected and or appointed officials of the federal government shall be herein guaranteed. Direct violation by any Federal official or officials of the provisions and limits of power as set forth in this Constitution shall constitute grounds for removal under this article.
Section 2
The procedure for the guarantee of this right shall exist in actions taken by the citizens through the legislatures and certain elected officials of the several states. The Federal government shall be barred from participation or influence in any way or manner in the execution of these actions but will be totally bound by law by the results thereof.
Section 3
In each individual state a call for impeachment of any federal official may be initiated by either of two distinct ways. The elected governor of each state will have the power to call for a vote of impeachment by the legislature of that state in order to initiate this procedure. The citizens of each state will also have the power through signed petition to require a vote of impeachment by the legislature of that state. The number of verified signatures on said petition must equal or exceed one fifth of the total number of votes cast in the most recent general election. When so ordered by the Governor or citizen petition the legislature of each state so ordered shall be required to convene if necessary and vote on such charges. A simple majority vote by each state's legislature shall stand as that state's authorization for charges to be brought against said official. Such authorization when confirmed by a simple majority of the several states shall require that charges be filed and the offending federal official be impeached.
Section 4
When impeachment is authorized in accordance with Section 3 of this article the elected governors of the several states shall be required to stand as jurors for such action. Conviction and removal from office of the federal official charged under this article shall require no less than a two thirds majority vote of the governors voting, excluding any and all abstentions.
Section 5
Conviction of any federal official under this article shall not extend further than the immediate removal from office of said official and lifetime disqualification to hold any office of the Federal Government. Such conviction and removal from office shall include immediate forfeiture of all claims to compensation of any kind whatsoever from the date of such conviction including all perquisites and pensions. Such conviction and removal from office shall not provide any immunity from indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to federal, state or local law for any crimes committed by said official while in office.
By Stan McHugh
MORE: http://www.article-v-convention.com/
Excellent idea, whose time has come, Fareed!! Let the "true" majority speak! Get the money out of politics and the corruption out of Government. Eliminate the power snobs who ignore the will of the people. Stipulate that only legal citizens, who are current on their taxes and NOT on public assistance have the right to vote! Insure that the laws apply to elected and wealthy people, as they do to poor people! The list continues....
So you want to exclude the poor for the election process simply because they are poor? What kind of democracy is that?
1. Reasonable corporate tax rate of 30% for any american company that has relocated overseas. 100% collection and corporate responsibility in paying for it. Fair for everyone who contributes
2. Congressional representation that is proportional to the population for every state and region. Equal representation
3. Congressional representation limited to 8 years maximum for all in congress. Limits corruption
4. Complete revision of the presidential election process inlcluding the electoral college. Less emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire in prohibiting other candidates from receiving a fair shake.
5. Corporate financial limit for candidates. All corporations cannot give more than a specific amount. Likewise, citizens limit on donations to candidates.
6.
Term limits! Career politicians are holding progress back more than anything. Once we get genuine leaders and representatives in, then we may have a functioning gov't again.
Excellent-needs to be done asap
My 3 amendments to the 222 yr. old Constitution of the USA would be:
1. A balanced budget amendment similar to what many states require
2. A "triune presidency": 1. A Domestic President to get the pulse of the citizens; 2. A Foreign President to spend full time going around the world getting the pulse of the world; 3. A Budget President to ensure a balanced budget. All of these would be elected by the American people.
3. Election of these Presidents would be by a simple majority, effectively eliminating the antiquated electoral college system
Interesting suggestion in #2 there. A triumvate might actually be a better way of doing things. Elbridge Gerry had suggested it at one point, but nobody liked it. Who would control military, though? Or all three in a joint decision? We do need a civilian leader for the armed forces, you know.
I might find the Budget President undesirable, though, depending on what powers (s)he had over Congress' power of the purse.
Perhaps I simply have a greater trust in a reformed Congress (as the Founders did–it's why the emphasis was placed on them–they theoretically better represented the people and states), or perhaps I simply have other priorities which I think might be better to focus on for a third triumvate, but I actually think the third should be a Technology/Science/Future-Oriented President of some sort. Someone to lead and coordinate the government's efforts in those areas, and to similarly lead and coordinate a department which would encourage growth in the private sphere in these areas. We need the technocrats, just not mixed up with social issues. Of course, this Technocrat President would be elected just as the others, but the focus of the election would be his or her credentials and platform in the relevant issues.
Yes revisions should be considered. I believe that regular Americans are losing their voice; not for the first time in our history, this country is rather feudalistic today. I believe that the popular vote should without a doubt select the President of the United States, that is how the people will have a real voice. I believe there need to be amendments about how money influences politics, how money is used in elections particularly after the last Supreme Court ruling. Also, the ability of the people to vote seems to need safeguarding right now. I cannot figure out how the "Tea Party" thinks that Republican governors making it difficult for poor people to vote, promotes freedom for all Americans. Thank-you.
Term limits for elected officials
$$$ out of political campaigns or low contribution limits. Public financed debates.
No lobby involvement
agree
Farheed, America needs to adopt 3 of the points that FDR had in the new constitution that he never en-acted. 1) Every American should be allowed a proper education, especially college. Tuition should be affordable or atleast within means of getting for poor ppl, especially poor ppl with good high school scores. 2) Every American should be able to receive proper healthcare at a reasonable price. Also cancer patients should not have to sell their homes and cars just to afford the care. 3) Every American deserves to live in a decent home, with no fear of interest rate hikes. These 3 things would help our economy and make our country strong again and make us capable of competing with countries like India and China.
I agree with your comments. We need access to higher education or trade schools, we need health care , and we need protection from catastrophic debts. Above all the constitution needs to support the right to pursue life, liberty, and general welfare of its citizens.
At the moment the needs of corporations, and politicans are met. " We the people", no longer count.
What effects our competitiveness is not any of the things you highlight. What effects it is the sense of entitlement that your statement so easily outlines and our laziness as a people. We need to put on our "big boy and girl pants" and get back to work.
I agree, as long as "home" is not defined as a house, but as a suitable residence. I would prefer to live in a small apartment with a limited number of possetions, and I am sure house ownership is not every other American's "dream".
Plus, a housing program involving providing actual houses would be wildly uneffective, and difficult to maintian as oil prices rise and the need to live more sustainably increases.
@Josh: well, what I see are social ills negatively effecting people who might have otherwise grown up as hardworking and effective citizens. I can see you point, and I do agree simply providing common services to all (which *is* what a government should do if a people need it to) might just be a band-aid solution if people don't step up and take on their own resonsibilities. However, given the state many children grow up in, even with a "perfect" education system I don't think we could fairly expect them to just work through it.
Sure, they could, some of them. And sure, those lucky few would have put in the hard work, etc, just like I'm sure you would claim you or your forefathers did. But we truly have it within our power to create better conditions for other human beings without damaging our own quality of life. Really. And you would really be so base as to demand that "everyone suffer just like people before had to! Or else they are selfish and greedy!"? Really?
I'm sorry, but that type of thinking is simply childish and petulant.
Where I see the mistake in your logic is the fact that you believe everyone can be as selfless as you. (Take this as a compliment). People tend not to be selfless. People need to work for what they possess or they will not value it nor will they be humble about how they got it even if recieved as charity. Unfortunately these days are upon us. If you believe people are thankful for government charity, listen closely to what they say. "We are entitled." "These are basic rights. "
Welcome to communism where the outcome is as predictable as the concepts of human nature. Greed and selfishness will lead to Oligarchy which eventually will lead to dictatorship. People must strive. People must feel humble when given charity. (Charity is not bad but is not a faceless government's function). Do you believe that housed people in China are Free? Do you believe that Putin is not a dictator? Good luck, stay positive, but do not be naive.
In a shorter response. Be charitable in your community with your hands and show your face. Not through government. Faceless Government is not the answer.
The first amendment that I would make to the constitution would be:
1. That no commercial venture or organization would be considered a citizen under law and any speech, including monies spent or given would be considered commercial speech and therefore regulated and disclosed.
2. That the 14th Amendment would be upheld in the broadest sense in that it states "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and should apply to marriage law, gender, gender identity and sexuality.
3. With staggered terms congress members be elected every four years. Current day congresses are in re-election campaigns from the moment they arrive in Washington leading to a government of "fadism" not concerned for the long term health of the nation and more susceptible to influence of financial supporters and lobbyists.
Your suggestion to end the electorial college system and the Senate allotment of two per state omly goes to prove your elitest contempt for what you hatefully call "fly over country" . Your suggested changes would let California and New York rule the country. Why don't you go back the the USSR or what ever marxest shit hole that you crawled out of ?
This is called equal representation
Your comment show that you are totally uneducated and racist! You cannot even make the sifference between USSR and India. You are at the right place: one of the sheep going over the clift with a smile on it's face, led by the Congress and Senate. God Bless...
Just a quick thought about what to put in a new Constitution: Political contributions can only come from those individuals living in the district, Yes, No Corporate or Union contributions as neither can vote. Any government program has to have a named sponsor to be held accountable for such as the shrimp on a treadmill or the $600 hammer. The electoral college was set up to keep the people from making a mistake. Well, over the last 220 years probably some have been made depending on your viewpoint but I'll take my chances with the people not the college. Abolish it.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes - 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Either expressly eliminate lobbying groups power to buy influence OR mandate establishment of ONE specific Peoples' Lobby that can have the same power and leverage as all the corporate lobbying groups....and in both instances, expressly forbid any lobbists from writing legislation.
I would recommend that the president is elected for one six year term and thus would have the opportunity to work on
issues rather then worry about being relected, raising relection monies, being on the road away from the office and
attempting to get support. The expense of running for office for a second term would be eliminated.
I agree with this statement!
not a bad idea but look at what hapens in mexico where reelction is prohibited
What about the election of president to a one eight-year term eliminating the need for "stumping" by the president. Obviously, safeguards would have to be in place to remove a rogue president. If this is unacceptable, how about limiting the fundraising and endless political bullcrap ads to three months prior to elections. The government could give each official candidate a set amount and it would be up to them to use the funds wisely. This would help eliminate the lobyist and private interest funding of our presidents and make the playing fields more even.
What about having each candidate set up a bio and agenda on the internet and each person logging onto these sites would have a code or number for that site and must present it at the voting location in order to vote. This won't force people to actually read the messages but at least they will have the opportunity to at least know something about for whom they are voting.
Finally, the definition of "public servant" should be reintroduced instead of the elitist attitude now pervading the government especially the House and Senate. They work for us but we have become really inefficient employers.
The United States is not a democracy, and it is not desirable that it should be. It is a republic. The founders were very much afraid of mob rule, and wrote specific protections into the Constitution to prevent this. An example is the clause, repealed by the 16th Amendment, forbidding Congress from levying any direct tax that was not in proportion to the census. The founders knew that, in a democracy, it was only a matter of time before the people decided to vote themselves rich.
The Constitution is a description of our process of government, and it is not possible to build a process that is proof against the people who operate it. Progressivism was launched a century ago, advocating that We the People would turn over the controls to the experts in exchange for bread and circuses. By now, all but the true believers must be able to see that this approach has been an enormous dead end. It led to the Vietnam War, as documented in *The Best and The Brightest*, it led to a nation that does not understand the basis of its prosperty and it has led to the moral and economic bankruptcy of the nation.
Before you change a process, you evaluate whether the execution of the process is working the way it should. We have enormous execution issues with our system of government. The Constitution calls for the legislature to be the premier branch of the government; Article I is about half of the entire document. Congress as we know it today passes sentiments, not laws; the details are left to federal agencies or courts, neither of which are accountable to the nation.
We say that power derives from the consent of the governed. After a hundred years of progressive education, the average citizen does not feel adequate to discharge the duties of giving or withholding consent. It's not that the American people have become stuipd; I work with them every day, and I don't believe that for a minute. The American people have been told that it is OK to be disengaged, and that we should be content with brain candy. After enough repetitions, many of them start to believe it.
Any attempt to change the Constitution without changing Congress or the citizenry will fail. It will result in more surface good intentions, but the basic themes that are present in our political life will undermine these intentions no less than they can do today to the Consitution in its current form.
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
Amendments to the existing Constitution are due.
1st. Absolute equal rights for each and every individual citizen and legal resident, without special qualifications for any group no matter how large or small. Then there is not need to pass laws based on race, religion, or any other persuasion.
2nd Term limits: a) Presidency one 6 year term; b) Senators one 6 year term, staggered elections, and keeping 2 per state to ameliorate the blind power of massive states to influence laws; c) representatives one 4 year term with staggered elections. No Retirement or longevity for federal service on elected officials.
3rd Voting Resident Citizenship Responsibility requirement for all born here, or naturalized, for 2 years Compulsory service in either military, federal foreign peace corp, or in-country providing same services in USA lessor developed communities. All completing that service then qualify for Government subsidized higher education, based on altitude in trades or at university.
I agreed with Mr. Reich until I heard what Mr. Stockman had to say, and then I agreed with him. Perhaps the Icelandic methodology will teach us that the American people wouldn't mind a small dose of socialism, all the time refusing to call it so.
But specifically, there are three steps which do not need a constitutional overhaul and may meet with Mr. Reich's and Mr. Stockman's approval for consideration. Legalize and tax drugs, stop our involvement in the Middle East (political and military) and rid our healthcare system of greed enablers. Medicare and private health insurance companies are by nature inflationary; nothing like paying out of our own pockets to contain costs but considering that healthcare should be as much a right as public education we could settle for an improved version of socialized medicine - like one run by the states locally. We're talking about one seventh of our GDP right there, not a small sum. Doing nothing or waiting for decisions from a Constitutional Assembly is risking what Mr. Stockman has called a day of reckoning.
Add an amendment to eliminate the convoluted House & Senate rules that virtually guarantee that nothing can be accomplished and replace them with a mandate to use Robert's Rules! (and with deadlines for when things have to be completed or the Committee in charge of the legislation in question loses their seat on the committee and their seniority for future committee placements.)
Fareed, what a wonderful story to cover! We so desperately need change in this country to once and for all bring our corruption levels down to at least the levels in the Scandinavian countries. I think facebook, etc is a great way for accomplishing it, thank you for brining it up, I never would have thought of that myself. This is the major components that I think need to revise the constitution, with one of them mentioned by you!
1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Legislative and Executive Campaign Finance Reform. Public financing instead of private to protect constituents from unfair "special interests" from large corporations, effectively limiting lobbyists role in Washington DC.
3. Getting rid of the electoral college
Amend the Constitution:
!. Public funding of all elections.Local, State, and Federal.
2. Term limits that eliminate professional politicians, and re-election campaigins. ^ year term for Presidents, * eight year term for Senators, 6 year terms for representitives.
3. Eliminate for profit lobbying.
4. Require a balanced federal budget.
Here are some amendment ideas:
*A "person" shall henceforth be defined as a single, living homo sapien, and all rights shall be protected for each qualifying "person" as defined in the federal and individual state constitutions; excepting the consideration of the rights of living animals not homo sapiens as stated by the federal government, states, and localities, no "non-person" entity will have any rights of "person" stated by any political entity extended to them. (This is to reverse any idea that corporations - or anything besides a single individual - is considered a person.)
*Education shall be facilitated and funded by the federal government. No state or local government shall provide money, offer incentives, or in any way attempt to direct or influence the activities of public schools. (We have thousands of local governing bodies making decisions for schools across the country, and many of them haven't a concept of how education works. School board members consist of good community leaders, but they're rarely, if ever, educators. Plus, they invite a whole lot of local cronyism and carry petty on-going feuds. State governments vary in their dedication to providing good education - we need the federal government to lead strongly on this.)
*Medicare for all!
Just one amendment is needed, fundamentally government intervention should require much more than 1/2 or even 2/3's support. The thought of even 67% of the people telling the other 33% what they can & cant do & how their hard earned tax money is spent seems wrong. I'm not sure if 75% is the right number, but here's a policy/constitutional amendment thought.
1) Congress (neither house or senate) shall enact policy without 75% support. Existing policy that does not retain at least 50% support in both houses shall be cancelled.
This should shut up the party wings who have little chance of gaining such substantial support for their ideology & preserve the freedom for all Americans!
Yes, but not piecemeal as many republicans would have it, only making small but radical changes. I like the Swedish model. Freedom of Speech does indeed cover it all. While it would take decades to change over and establish the precedents that would last the next couple of hundred years; we have the existing constitution and body of law to guide us more accurately than we now use Blackstone's law, and other current tendencies.
Fareed, not only should the Constitution be updated, I have written a "Proposed, Amended Constitution of the United States" in my book "Blame It On The System." It covers the powers and limitations on federal, state and local governments. The most important amendments are: 1) all laws must be understandable by the average citizen and must be applied equally to all persons, including elected and appointed public officials without exception. 2) Term limits for all public officials – no more career politicians. 3) No earmarks or amendments unrelated to a proposed bill. Every bill should stand on its own merits.
Private companies will not receive a financial bailout for any reason.
Go watch "Too Big To Fail"
Don't forget, Article 5 of the Constitution prevents amendment of the Constitition regarding equal representation by the states in the Senate without the consent of the state(s) affected.
That having been said I would give the largest 20 cities in the nation one Senator each in an attempt to balance the rural bias in the Senate.
Direct election of the president, in the interests of democratic equity.
An amendment requiring the Senate to act on bills passed by the House of Representatives. No more stalling no more arcane procedures. Once this occurs, we'll see how popular the Senate really is.
I do think that the constitution should be completely rewritten, to me it is to vague and not relevant to the complex set of problems that face the U.S. On the other hand though there are to many separate groups in this nation with strong unwavering ideals, to me if we were to write a constitution the U.S would have to generally share some core ideas that we could agree on; these days such a powerful thing as a constitution would be used for endless political schemes to promote hidden agendas. The constitution could however use amendments to update it (i see that as actually possible).
Im not exactly fully aware of all the problems facing the U.S as a whole, but my three amendments would be
1. Governments goal is to maintain peace, secure property rights, promote prosperity in ITS boarders(no more funding our enemies and corrupt dictators through aid), and maintain a positive budget. I feel like the idea of not spending into a endless abyss of debt needs to be written in stone at this point.
2. Unless U.S citizens are in danger the U.S military cannot engage in conflicts. Aspiring to police the world is not a good idea, it has never worked and never will. Every nation that has aspired to martial dominance over the rest of the world has collapsed or descended into some of the darkest times in history.
3. No 2 party system, atleast 3 main candidates must be on every ballet in every state. In an ideal world 4 or 5 people would run equally throughout the race. 2 choices isn't choice enough. In a capitalist system that promotes variety as a key to success should use that. This isn't Communist russia, we don't need 2 choices from the gov't. In reality aswell the leading candidates in both parties are essentially the same. "Progressivism and spending."
4. Affiliates of corporations cannot have contact with public officials, no lobbying. it should be illegal with jail time attached. Do you want your gov't controlled by someone other than the people, do you want it bought out from underneath your feet.
My opinion is let the country actually live by the Constitution for 10 years, see the outcome, then ask this question again. Our government has not govern by the Constitution for decades, the changes Congress has taken upon itself, agencies that have made changes by written administrative orders have led us down the path we are in now. Read the Federalist Papers explaining the Constitution and let the country replace all that politics has influenced over the years. Try living by the Constitution again, but the true Constitution not the political spin of this day and age.
Well said.
Only three,
1. Change from a Presidential System, to a Semi-Parliamentary/Semi-Presidential System of Government.
2. The Speaker of the House should be an Independent with no Partisan links, should be appointed.
3. Give the District of Columbia a special status, giving it a full voting rights Representative, two Senators with voting rights, and a Local Government that can create it's own laws and budget without Congressional interferance. Basiclly a State without the name.
One of the simplest ideas inherent to human interaction is quid pro quo, "this for that." Essentially just an exchange, in which one individual trades with another. When one uses his or her power for the benefit of another in exchange for some good or service, it is called bribery.
Lobbying is act of influencing political, or court decisions. At best, it is a form of advocacy from one person or from a group that influences a decision. At worst, it is a form of coercing a decision by powerful special interest forces using either bribery or political threats.
Lobbying needs to be much more tightly controlled by the constitution with the coercive practices strongly discouraged.
Similarly, the practices of corporations lobbying (coercing) “public good” decision making by private concerns should be more tightly controlled. An example of this is drug companies bribing a physician to prescribe a particular medicine.
Obviously this is a complex issue and there are inherent dangers to incorrectly codifying a change such as this, but in my opinion the dangers inherent in doing nothing are much greater affecting both our economic and social structures.
you are my favorite teacher; i fell like i am back in college in political science. Nothing is twisted and contorted to someone view point. You are in the present talking about the whole world and its problems and its success and how it effects the US
Fareed,
What does where and when the constitution was written have to do with the quality of the document itself? Because it was written in a small room with the shades drawn and before the toilet was invented is it somehow less of a document? That is clearly your assertion. Perhaps you should discuss the constitution based on its merits instead. We know the constitution stands in the way of your agenda, ever increasing centralized government, but that is the whole reason for its existence. We should all be grateful that this handful of intellectual men created such a timeless document. It protects us from people like you!
Yes, in 2 areas. Immigration laws and Outsourcing which is were restoring the middle class sector of US economy.
With immigration, here is what I have to say. I, myself is a temporary worked in US on H1 B visa and as many of us I too have a American dream of working and making my living till retirement in this great country but then my green card application ( note, I am leagally entered this county and apply for PR) is pending in the category which is back dated 2002. How will have any motive to invest in this economy when I am not sure If I will be allowed to stay here. I have investments back in my country and in recent years I have bought at least one house back home. I would rather invest here and contibute to the economy. Issue here is outdated immigration law which allocates equal % of PR allotment irrespective of the country you belong to. Other there are talks around making legal people given citizenship but then what about those who come in legally?
On outsourcing, everything!! everything is made in China. May be we should think about rationing some sectors not to be outsourced, This will help build back economy here, keep up with the globilization and also be safe. For ex – toys for children could be limited to only US made.
Modify the constitution to include: 1. No public employee of the federal government (including congress) shall make in total compensation more than the median per capita income of the US population or shall receive any benefits (health, retirement, anything) where that exact same benefitis not available and offered to the rest of the general public. 2. No federal employee of the federal government (including congress) shall be allowed to receive any gift (of any value) or privilege where that exact same gift or privilege is not available and offered to the general public. 3. Only an individual person residing in the state or jurisdiction of the public office (no corporation or group of any kind) can contribute support of any monetary value (not to exceed $2500 per election cycle) to an individual who is in the process of attaining a public office.
1. Universal Healthcare (cost split between states and the fed govt.)
2. If a company seeks to sell factory-produced goods in the U.S., that company must operate a “majority” of its factories in the U.S.
3. In the event of government shut-downs, the three branches of government will lose pay in proportion to the rest of the federal government.
Our consitituion, magnificent historical document that it is, was written over 200 years ago. Knowledge and conditions have arisen that could not have been anticipated and need to be addressed.
I favor keeping the Senate as is because it was set up that way to counterbalance the influence of the populous states and give some power to the states with less population. However, I agree that the Electoral College should be abolished.
Second, as things stand now, I think most members of Congress are more interested in being reelected than in actually serving. Therefore, I suggest that the constituion be amended to limit terms to a total of 6 years total in the house and/or the Senate.
I would also like to see the Constituion amended to limit the influence of lobbiests and business.
You didn't ask for a fourth suggestsison, but here is one anyway. When the Consitituion was written, it was a long, arduous journey to get back and forth to Washington DC from home. With transportation much faster easier now. I suggest that Congress meet only for three or four six week session per year, and their salaries massivley reduced.
1. eliminate electoral college in favor of national election disregarding states
2. term limit president to single 6-year period
3. term limit supreme court justices to 20 years or age 75, whichever comes first
A constitutional amendment is not needed to elect the President with the most popular votes.
The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes - 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
1. Reestablish The Gold Standard for US currency and never dissolve it again!
2. Foreign Aid can Never Exceed the Aid given to the poor and homeless in our own country. And no our current entitlements/birth-rights don't count in the tabulation!
3. Wealth Caps, Anyone's personal wealth exceeds 0.05% of the GNP 75% of the overage must be put into a fund for the poor and homeless!
Your last two put a smile on my face
Instead of trying to change the Constitution, I would like to see us go back to living under the Constitution as written. Our founding fathers thought long and hard about what kind of government to give us. They deceided that a Republic was the best option. They warned the people of at that time that it would be up to us to keep it. The main difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that in a Republic not everyone votes. Therefore your vote counts. Congress is a Democracy. Our "electorial" vote has been stolen from us. Art 1 Sec 10 guarantees us a monetary system backed by gold and silver. We have been tricked into thinking the Federal Reserve Act applies to us. Some of the later Amendments to the Constitution declare that "Congress shall have power to enforce this Act". Congress cannot give themselves "power". Before we start to make changes to our Constitution, lets make sure people understand their Constitution and realize what they have and how the changes you propose will effect their lives. Thanks for letting me vent.
What James Madison was referring to as a republic was a representative democracy, but the term representative democracy was not in use back then, so he did not say it. A true republic is very different from our form of government, this is apparent when viewing the differences between true republics and the United States at that time. A republic like what Rome was or any other true form of a republic, is not and never should be a major component of our system of government.
Amendments to the U.S. constitution:
1. Introduce a mandatory system of recycling that would impose fines and possible jail sentences for individuals and companies who did not recycle.
2. Declassify marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Introduce a government program to tax and legalize the medicinal and recreational use of marijuana.
1. Elections
A. Candidates for public office in the United States must receive a mojority of the votes cast in order to be elected.
B. All elections or candidate selection processes in the United States must be open to all voters.
2. States Rights
The Congress may not require actions on the part of States as a condition of receiving funding.
3. Budget
The budget of the United States must be balanced over five year cycles except in the event of a national emergency
as proclaimed by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress.
Alternatives for increasing revenue as it relates to health care spending:
1. Heavily tax alcohol, tobacco, and firearms-100% of the cost of that item.
2. Heavily tax food that has a high sugar, saturated fat content.
3. BMI greater than 40 = 5% higher federal tax rate
4. BMI less than 25 = 5% reduction in the federal tax rate
5. Legalize marijuana and then heavily tax all revenues-50 to 100%
All tax revenue goes directly to health care.
II think this is a great idea. It would allow to deal with a some of the ambiguities we find ourselves with 200+ years later. While there are probably lots changes necessary the first that come to mind are- 1) Abolish the electoral college, 2) Clarify the "right to bear arms", 3) In addition to spelling out the "rights" of citizens, the "responsibilities" should be elaborated and the results if you do not fulfill your responsibilities. Non-politicians (citizens by recommendation + random selection) should be selected to help solidify the crowd sourced input.
I would amend the U.S. Constitution in the following manner:
1. Money is not speech, and corporate campaign contributions are forbidden, also coerced contributions from employees.
2. Campaigns to be conducted in the same way as Australia and New Zealand, by debate only, and purchasing campaign ads on TV and radio are forbidden.
3. Social Security and Medicare: Just as excess funds collected for these programs have been transferred to the general fund and spent, a deficit must be made up from the general fund.
The US should outlaw all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and require complete adherence to the
laws of the nonproliferation treaty such that any transfer of fissile material to a nuclear weapon state
will amount to a threat to the security of the US.All nuclear reactors should be placed under a civilian,
independent body of concerned citizens and scientists outside the AEC to ensure complete safety in
tge desugn and operation of nuclear reactors especially with the Fukushima experience of repeated
radiation hazard weeks after the accident.
Go back to India, and get your own country to stop proliferating nukes As well as floating dead bodies down the major waterway. Sheesh! What is it about basic sanitation that you dotheads don't understand YET?.
I believe the constitution is long overdue for an overhaul to modernize, to de-politicize certain areas and to help enable the governing body to make productive decisions without the gridlock. Presidential appointees should be done without consent from the legislative body. The Electoral college should be abolished. The War Powers Act should be abolished. Political Parties should be abolished from ballots. The process for amendment to the consitution should be made easier and simplified. In short the whole document should be rewritten and brought into the 21st Century. What we have for an operating system is slow, cumbersome, ineffective, somewhat like an old PC that cannot cope with the demands of new programs and problems.
No. Wrong. Get out. The Consitution STANDS. As is. You go. There are loads of Commie Countries. You GO. Whatever your name is.
Reducing health care costs:
1. Anyone over 90, no intubation and ventilation if anticipated more than 24 hours
2. No dialysis for anyone over 85
3. Tort Reform
4. Anticipated life span less than 6 months heavy standardized evaluation for hospice
5. Limit high cost imaging tests with standardized indications
I have a suggestion for you – let's apply all those Death Diktats to people named "Jay".
My husband Morgan Wood and I believe the electoral college should be dissolved and have one person one vote to determine our political leaders including the President of the United States. Technology could support using a fingerprint to identify someone voting. This could be done via on a cell phone, a computer, or a voting station. Also, I believe the consitution needs to make health care a human right because we all pay for this in one way or another.
A fair tax law needs to be in place simplifying the tax code. If a couple or individual makes $75,000 or less then no taxes need to be filed and no taxes owed. No subsidies given. Otherwise, there should be a simple tax of 30 % on income. Those making a million dollars or more should pay 50 % tax. No loopholes and no write offs.
Companies taking their business to other countries be required to pay these people in other countries the same wage they would pay employees in the US plus be required to pqy the same benefits. There would need to be a cooperative effort between countries to make this policy work. Taking jobs away from Americans would not be as attractive then. Also, no monetary incentive to take the jobs away from Americans be given by our government. If we did this, there would not be as many people leaving their countries like in Mexico for instance. Jobs could then be given back to the American worker and make our economy stronger.
On another social issue not related to the constitutional question, I believe people should not be proscuted for using drugs but instead be offered treatment. The United States spend too much money prosecuting people for drug use which is overcrowding our prisons and the War on Drugs is a lost cause. There needs to be a program making drug selling and drug use no longer profitable. It would be much less expensive then spending money on prosecuting drug sellers and drug users. Elements of the plan would include those using drugs to be provided controlled drugs (like a prescribed level which can be monitored) by the govt., assisting the govt. in a way to monitor the epidemic, and the addict would be given a place to use these drugs. These addicts should be stripped of their children and means taken to prevent pregnancy (voluntary temporary reliable birth control ie depo shot/hormone implant) on the male and female addict. Drug addicts receiving these services would not be allowed to drive a car or offer these drugs to other people. A rehab card would be offered on a regular basis to the addict in event he or she desires help. If the drug addict tries to give or sell the drugs given to them by the govt.,to others, the addict doing this would be given a serious prison sentence. Take the profit out of drugs and women will not be selling their bodies for drugs, children would not be victims, and drug lords would be a thing in the past.
Just my thoughts. Debra Wood
The Electoral College was created to BALANCE POWER, you dim-witted ninny. ANY-ONE addressind ANY issue in American life should understand this – and revere and venerate the raison d'etre FOR the Electoral College. ANY-ONE who blathers about dissolving the Electoral College should be BRANDED as a subversive, laying the way for a power grab.
What an utter FACIST you are, Debbie! Your proscriptions for "what to do with Welfare recipients" are beyong chilling. Ypou are willing to dole out Other People's money, as long as the Welfare Untermenschen do your bidding – but are willing to steal their own children, as punishment, if they do not obey your diktats to the letter? YOU are EVIL anmd INHUMAN -as are most Commies. .
Human Nature is NOT perfectable. How's about we allow Darwininan Nature to flow freely -and end Welfare. Just END it. The dull-witted, stupid, and untalented home-grown low-IQ proles can feed and house themselves by resuming the low-skilled jobs lately taken be the Mestizo invaders. Why work as a MacDonald's order-taker – when Welfare is so much more comfy and lucrative? As Ben Frnklin said, make poverty uncomfortable. The better-abled, naturally-gifted Untermenschen will Rise Above – by thier own efforts, and actually EARN the colleg degrees and jobs currently bestowed sans merit, and the worst dregs will die themselves off. And hard-working, put upon functional people will no longer be forced to pay confiscatory taxes for their own displacmeent by the Dregs.
How'z that sound, Debbie?
You may want to look into what a fascist really is Denise, because eliminating the electoral college gives every single person in this country a voice, thats something that fascism never stood for. Also part of what makes humans amazing is that we manipulate nature and use it for our benefit. Mixing darwinism and social darwinism into some convoluted set of ideals is pure madness on your part and says a lot about you as a person. Your playing into the same thing as the gang bangers that feed off of welfare, the idea that someone is worthless unless they seem important and worthy to you, and if they are not then they should be dead. Way to go using your animal primal instincts to try and look smart, you fail.
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and contemporary vice-presidential candidates such as Bob Dole and Walter Mondale.
You sound like an elitist, resentful of our Checks & Balances.
Absent any mention of the Founding Father's desire to build "Checks & Balances" into our system – as well as the fact that we are a REPUBLIC, your presentation of this issue is disingenuous at best – designed to elicit a response that would condemn our nation to rule by heavy population centers, such as the Boston-WashingtonDC corridor and California.
As Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Conventioin, as woman asked him what kind of system the new constitution had given us. "A Republic, if you can keep it," was his response – NOT "a Democracy, if you can keep it." You, of course, decided not to mention that very relevant fact.
We need to keep our Republic – a Democracy is, after all: "two wolves and a lamb, deciding what to have for lunch."
Changes I would like to see?
1). An amendment establishing English as our official language.
2). An amendment stipulating that the only entities permitted to financially contribute to any state or federal election are persons who are eligible to vote in said election.
3). To be considered a citizen because of birth within our national boundaries, at least one of the parents must be here legally as a citizen or a landed immigrant.
4.) Persons who are dual-citizens (the USA and any other country) must publicly renounce citizenship/loyalty to the other country, prior to running for election in any state or federal election – every time an announcement is made that the person is running for election or reelection.
5.) All citizens otherwise eligible to vote in a state or federal election must first pass the same test which those seeking to become naturalized citizens are required to pass.
Currently, our federal elections are charades – choreographed by deep-pocket special interest groups/lobbies. A large proportion of those eligible to vote are largely ignorant of our nation's history and our system of government. A well-informed voting citizenry is essential, and my point#5 would help steer our elections away from the soap-selling farce they have become.
By the way – regarding your question on this morning's show: "What nations did the U.S.A. fight against in the Korean War, North Korea and ....?" Yes – China was the one best answer – but don't forget that many of the North Korean MiGs were piloted by Soviets who also heavily aided them materially.
i agree with a lot of what you said, except you spend a lot of time and emphasis on immigration and whatever language we speak. These are issues which do not solve the real problems we have today. Political corruption in the other hand as you mention is probably to blame for most of the gridlock we have today because politicians are only puppets for the corporations which give them money and not true representatives of their constituents. If this issue is not solved, it wont matter what language or what the landscape looks like in 100 years, weather everyone looks Chinese and speaks Russian for example, is irrelevant to solving the problems of a society.
Aren – thanks. You are sane. Miracle! You'd never know there was a shred of sanity left, in the USA, judging from the posts of the majority of these trolls.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
Although we need way more than 3 these are my three changes:
1.Balanced budget-make it illegal for the Goverrnment to spend more than it takes in with out 75% vote by House and Senate.
2.Abolish political parties-they are the reason for most of our disfunction in government
3.Ban all corporate political contributions and ban all lobiest.Does anyone really think that politicians aren't completely beholden to the business' that give them money?
Amendments:
1. Take the money out of our election system. All parties should have an equal size of expression, so in the end the party that wins is the one with , hopefully, the "best" message. The system now in place is one where he who shouts the louder wins., i.e. , if money is speech,. then he with the most money then drowns the opposing sides voice. Stablish a system in which every tax payer contributes 10 dollars each year and in 4 years divide that money equally.
2. Heck, take money and a profit motive out of Politics entirely. Public servants in executive/legislative/judicial positions should serve because they have a calling for it and not be beholden to political contributors. They should not be allowed to work for industries which previously gave money to their campaigns or even lobbying firms...heck, lobbying should not be allowed altogether.
3. Education and Healthcare should be excluded from being for profit practices.
And if more than 3 amendments are to be considered, I would propose:
4. Get rid of Electoral College.
5. Income tax to be steeply graduated, with higher rates for higher income, and capital gains to be taxed at same rate as wages.
6. Photo ID not to be required for elections (since there are hardly any cases of voter impresonation, this is done solely to suppress the vote of low income persons who can't afford a car and can't take off a day of unpaid time to go to DMV and get an ID. Many low income people have to work 6 or 7 days a week. Also, employers don't allow employees to take unpaid time off. And people can't always find their birth certificate or pay the fee to get a replacement.
Pearl – just go to Israel, and stop subverting my country, mmm'kay? All of your "suggestion" are the polar opposite of the principles of the USA. So GO.
4 words. National Popular Vote bill.
The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes – 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Adding Amendments to the Constitution should never be done lightly; changes made should clearly reflect sea changes in our understanding of our Political System and how it may no longer reflect the realities of the world around us; an example is the 22nd Amendment that limits the President to two terms in office, which clearly is a direct follow on to Roosevelt's four terms. Following that were statutory changes that created the National Security Council, which increased the role of the Vice President; this did not require a Constitutional Amendment, such as the limiting of the Presidential Terms, but clearly was a direct result of the Roosevelt years where the Vice President had limited roles and it became clear that the traditional role of the Vice President must change. The above situations are somewhat indicative of how and why the Constitution should be changed. It should never be changed to deal with issues that are reflective of a single generation, but instead should be changed to resolve issues that clearly will transcend generations to come, the classic example being the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery.
The only election in this country that is not decided by the popular vote is the presidential election. Why is that? It should be changed.
The reason that nothing seems to change from administration to administration is that the corporate lobbyists and influences don't change There needs to be some mechanism to control the flow of corporate money to campaign financing. It is wrong to deny any citizen a voice in government and the business community need to have a voice. I just don't see the benefit in corporate control of campaigns, elections, and legislation (including taxes) just because they have effective lobbying groups. The AARP is just as heavy handed as the NFIB.
BALANCE THE BUDGET!!!!!!!
From a Canadian friend and observer of U.S. politics:
(1) Extend the term of office of members of the House of Representatives from two to four years, thus allowing more time to legislate and less time to campaign;
(2) Establish an independent Tribunal of Public Office to conduct the election of Congressmen and the President under one federal set of regulations and procedures and to conduct federal redistricting on a regular basis;
(3) Abolish the Electoral College system, thus allowing the election of the President to be based simply on numbers of votes received.
1. No. By being two years, this gives the people the voice that they are supposed to have. They have plenty of time to legislate. By being two years, they have to worry about what the people think. THIS was supposed to be the voice of the people. Thus 2 years in office. Allows you to get somebody out that isn't listening to the people.
2. No. Each state is and should be in charge of how they conduct elections. This is just one protection for states.
3. No. By doing so, you make just a few very populated states even more powerful and in effect, they then dictate terms to the smaller states. Or, simply ignore the needs of those states.
You seem to not understand anything about how and why our government was set up the way it was. I suggest you read the writings of James Madison. You will quickly learn that these things are not outmoded. In fact, they are more important than ever.
Keep the current Constitution
1) Term Limits, 5 terms for the House, (10 years) 2 terms for the Senate (12 years)
2) Only living human beings can contribute to a campaign or politial party. No Corporate Money, No Union money, No Lobby money. All donations (who gave what) published on the internet.
1. Specific term limits for ALL elected officials; no lifetime appointments...
2. Guaranteed health care for all U.S. citizens
3. Outlaw special interest group lobbying
4. Soooo many more; many of which have been listed here.
One things for sure. We, as a country, better do something and do something quick.....(TIC-TOC-TIC-TOC)
I caught the part of the show this morning when Mr. Zakaria commented that it is "un-democratic" that a state such as Wisconsin have an equal number of U.S. Senators as does California. Perhaps he has missed the point. The U.S. does not have a pure democracy, but rather a representative republic. The fact that a state like California has an equal number of U.S. senators is purposeful – to prevent mob rule of the majority. It is part of the design of our system of checks and balances to prevent an overbearing central government from infringing on the rights of the states. Unfortunately, the comment either shows Mr. Zakaria's lack of understanding of our federalist system, or he simply doesn't care. Either way, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Fareed,
AMAZING number of responses wanting to eliminate funding elections from non-human beings; Corporate, Unions, ectra.
and the permanent elected official. (term limits)
The courts say (donation to Campaigns) money = free speech. If that is so, does the million dollar donnation = a million votes?
If Washington really wants to drain the swamp of corruption. Start with the water....the money.
There's a show for you!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;"
Notice it says " all men", not "all christian white men".
In case you don't know, this is from the Declaration of Independence, which are founding fathers signed.
By your definition, I am an American.
There is an email going around about an amendment to the constitution that I recommend you use for a future program. I have included it for your information.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!
I think your ratings for this show would go through the roof!
This proposal would go long way to solve the problems. Who will bell the cat?
On changing the Constitution:
We need to revise our tax laws & go to a flat tax. Our political campain finance laws need to be changed to keep corporations from running the country. The electorial college needs to be scrapped, it is no longer revelant in electing our President.
Constitutional congress...is overdoo. But please, not in close rooms & even less by politicians that can make the movement of the moon around Earth debatable according to the polls, or the latest creationist intellectual babble. I think that 1st: the complete sepration of religion & government, law & rights -you don't have democracy when some religion is capable to select the rights & how are implemented; 2nd: universal right to health, education (if you've the talent) & a social network to protect you when illness, community disasters, to help you be back on your feet. 3rd: The ultimate (like the Spaniards said when enacted that law) family vlues: for God sakes, make gay, lesbian couples to have a way to live together (just don't call it marriage, the same rights, etc, & called it whatever), & the same goes with adoption of children -the closest gay people behave to the heterosexual couples, the closest they'll live by family values. 4th: simplify both taxation & corporate laws: universal taxation eliminating the loopholes that GE uses to pay zero taxes. Now @ the USA's hardest to fulfill the 'American Dream' than Canada, and the majority of West European countries -that's not only shameful, it's dangerous!
These are some of my idea’s that might have some merit – maybe in my list there “might: be three that are worthy:
1.) Change US Representative terms to 6 years, and House & Senate term limits to two non-consecutive terms in a lifetime. One-third elected every two years. Would eliminate campaigning on “Our Dollar”, reduce possibility of corruption, no seniority over a period of time for committee heads, new blood – new idea’s.
2.) Eliminate all retirement benefits for Congressional electee’s, these are elected officials, not meant to be a career – only six month stipend to allow to get back into private sector employment.
3.) Flat individual income tax, pay at point of distribution. Greatly reduce IRS payroll, no returns to file, transfer some IRS employees to fraud squad in disability and other entitlement programs.
4.) Entitlement program recipients, earn their entitlement, WPA – CCC type, say twenty hours a week, some would be daycare, some would be temps to lower paid jobs that citizens refuse to work at and compete with our out of hand illegal immigrants – no work no entitlement!
5.) Instill tariffs on those products produced by U.S. companies relocating off shore and sending them back here for assembly – they are reducing our GNP, lining their pockets, rocking our balance of trade, contributing to our unemployment.
6.) Eliminate private financed campaigns for public office – donations to a pool and all qualified candidates share the pool equally,
7.) More communication with the voters daily, weekly, monthly on officials “Report Card” and issues dealt with in the most recent past and in the coming future – easily accessible to all citizens – so they can be more aware of what our employee’s are doing.
In times of economic crisis such as this for our country in 2011, the Constitution needs an amendment for emergency economic power for the President, such as: The President and his Cabinet shall have economic emergency powers that override Congress as to taxing, housing, spending, creating jobs, borrowing money, adjusting social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but only during times of deadlock with the Congress that lasts more than three months, and only when the U.S. Government is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Skywalker – Barton Block
John T glad to see we agree on some points. . .we don't disagree on the ineffectiveness of the Federal Reserve system either; any Central Bank with the control to indebt the constituent population for which it purportedly serves is inherently flawed, for example, the Federal Reserve. And despite the character flaw of personal misgivings towards non-white non-Gentiles, another great move Andrew Jackson might be more famously known for was paying off the national debt, making the case for my third point.
Negating one point doesn't logically posit the other, however, with respect to the Fed; all I mean to say is that a system of loosley-regulated credit and creation of currency doesn't have take the form it is currently in. There is absolutely zero rational reason that the minting of money should require a repayment in interest, and therein lies our agreement.
Cheers brother.
1. As funny as this may sound I believe we should actually address the debt ceiling through an amendment. Both parties have proven that they are not willing to deal with the issue in any meaningful way. I am a student and I really do not want my generation or that of even younger generations to try and dig our way out of a deeper hole (as selfish as this may sound). Hence, I think setting a limit to the amount of debt we can be in is a great way to force effective, immediate action. If this is not possible, I would at least suggest an amendment on how much of our debt can be owned by a country. Whether China is a threat or not, no country should own 25 % of our debt.
2. I believe we should address the War Powers Act through an amendment. This is an age-old debate that needs to be resolved. Hence, I think that we need to address whether picking sides in a conflict is an act of war in itself if it's over the 60-day limit. I realize that NATO seems to have changed its role from an alliance to a collective security organization, but the United States still is its leader and main contributor. So, we need to address if the organization's actions in Libya are the same as the U.S. directly engaging in war.
3. This is really out there but I think we need to ban contributions to elected officials from special interest groups. I'm sorry if anyone disagrees but in the American school system and colleges throughout the nation students are taught that free trade (trade liberalization) is good for a nation and special interest groups are getting in the way of this greater good. We learn this from elementary school nowadays so it is accepted almost as an universal law. So, I believe the best way to limit the power of a small, well-organized minority that hurts the nation as a whole is to take away their main source of power- financial contributions to elected officials.
Changes to the constitution. It would be difficult because of the political realities that we live in. Unfortunately our curent congress and senate do not have the ability to improve. I doubt that the leadership in Washington could possibly improve the constitution. Our goverment serves its own self interest. Elections are seldomn about issues of the common interest, but are media events in which the show must go on. The people who wrote the constitution, and bill or rights had a vision. Our leaders today pale by comparrison, and are driven only by self interest.
The constitution as it is maybe our only protection against the tyrants in Washington. Thank god it is in writing.
I would add:
"Corporations, obtaining thier existence by grant of the people, are not persons under the Bill of Rights, and the people shall be free to regulate corporate affairs in any way they deem proper." Or something to that effect.
I would add these amendments:
1. Corporations are not citizens and have no rights.
2. The Congress is authorized to spend only what it collects. Budgets must be balanced.
3. Citizens are those children born to citizens. It is not sufficient to be borm here.
4. All Americans are entitled to free healthcare.
5. American citizens have no right to bear arms.
Amendment to the constitution: Regardless of how it was finally written and implemented, an amendment should be crafted that had the effect of making all campaigns publicly financed and put an end to private contributions from individuals, corporations or unions to candidates. Everything seems to be influenced by campaign contributions, and this would free candidates from the burdens of fund raising and allow them to take bolder stances on policy issues where we need stronger leadership.
A good amendment to the Constitution would be one that guarantees all rights and freedoms to all people regardless of race, ethnicity, affiliation, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Until it's illegal to discriminate against EVERYONE, we will only have liberty and justice for those lucky enough to belong to particular groups living in particular places.
I can suggest 3 simple amendments to the Constituiton that will help to do what was originally intended, to keep the federal govenrment in check.
1. Make an amendment that resticts government spending to no more that 15% of gdp and make an exception for military spending in responce to aggression by another nation or roup.
2. Repeal the 16th amendment.
3. Repeal the 17th amendment.
I would make the presidency a one-time six year term. Nothing gets done in years 3 and 4 ofa president's first term because he's already running for re-election.
that also does make good sense
There's one amendment that with its addition would radically change 'politics as usual' forever. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. Every single problem we face in governance has its roots in the misalignment between corporate dollars and legislators. Ban corporate cash–liberate the people. It's really that simple. And if voters actually demanded that reform be made, we'd have a government who's accountability was solely aligned with the voter...as it should be.
Ditto suggestions for unclogging judiciary and confirmation process.
Top proposition requires that corporations be denied the privileges of a citizen, specifically in the realm of free speech and campaign giving.
Third proposition clarifies and assures freedom of privacy - personal and physical.
1) no more electoral college – we have technology to easily monitor and record a popular vote now. And it is clearly more democratic.
2) no more corporate or personal $$ allowed to fund campaigns.
3) churches should be subject to tax like any other corporation. that's what they are now – corporations. That has changed dramatically over the years and it is adversely affecting the country's bottom line.
New amendemnts to US Constitiution
1. Every citizen is required to give 2 years of national service at age 18. ( all areas to be determined by Congress
2. The various states will consolidate to sevewral areas of regionalism with use of the interstate compact clause to create efficiency and economic gain.
3. There will be no law to discriminate for left handed paople.
4. The constitution will mandate that (ethyl) alcohol be declared a food or a drug to secure public safety.
Thank you for listening
Fareed,, with all due respect, you need to remember that the Senate was created to give each state equal status in that branch of the legislature, no matter how small. Rhlde Island has the same status in the Senate as California. But not in the House. An important principle which should not be changed.
Re possible amendments: I can think of only one: An amendment to eliminate corporate donations to elected federal officials. We are supposed to be of the people not of the corporate world.
While it is true the Senate is not purely democratic in nature, it was designed that way for good reason. When the idea of the House of Representatives was debated, smaller states were very concerned about being strong armed, or even completely helpless, when opposing laws supported by larger states. For that reason, the Senate was established to offer smaller states equal 'say' in approving laws, eliminating the possibility of being completely subject to a purely democratic vote.
Mr. Zakaria,
Your monologue is somewhat baffling. There is already a system in place to provide amendments to the Constitution. We have done it many times in our history (as you acknowledged yourself). If you are suggesting the adoption of some extraconstitutional measures to change the document that is the framework of our government, then I have to say that your suggestion is fundamentally flawed and dangerous.
Ammendmens
1: Juciciary to be term limited to 15 years
2: Representatives and senators to be limited 10 years
3 Birth right citizenship not to be available to illegal immegrants and tourists
4: require 2 year national service from all citizens and immegrants
5: basic health care for all tax payers if you have not reported tax no heathcare
Proposed changes to the Constitution:
1. Guaranteed Health Care
2. Completely revised tax system (something along the lines of the 'Fair Tax' but more attention needs to be given to corporate responsibilities in this area).
3. Completely outlaw lobbying and lobbyists of any stripe.
The twenty seventh amendment should be:
No business owner or CEO should earn more than 50 time the earnings of his average worker.
Mr. Reich touched on this. When all the money goes to the top then there is nothing left for the rest of us.
Suggest amendments? why, who is going to vote them in, Congress? Balanced budget amendent. Longer fixed terms without reelection. Total campaign reform. But it will take a revolution. How about VOTING on a revolution? Http://www.JeffBlock2012.com
RENAME THE TERM "GOVERNMENT"
Do citizens want to be GOVERNED or SERVED? How are citizens being Governed versus how are we being Served? WHAT'S IN A NAME?
Government (noun) Definition: ..the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government)
Govern (verb) Definition: take control; rule. Synonyms: command, control, dictate, occupy throne, order, reign, tyrannize,...(http://thesaurus.com/browse/govern):
============================
The U.S. Constitution, and future documents to protect individual freedoms in other modern societies, needs to be additionally and deliberately optimized to support the healthy psyche of both leadership and the people.
The U.S. founding fathers probably didn't fathom changing the actual name for their national leadership entities from "government" to an alternate term, as the name was and continues to exist under English language semantics. The term "government" was selected and adopted under tradition, as it remains today. The founding fathers appeared to be concerned more with the formal written powers of government rather than the informal psychological powers of the word "government."
It is generally accepted that the term "government" refers to the entities that manage a society. While it is good to have a means to manage society, there is no logic to require that such management entities continue to be called "governments" which has rigidly-attached, historical connotations of control and domination. Accordingly, citizens should not be amazed when certain leaders emerge with self perceptions of omnipotence, as they were elected to "govern."
But what's in a name? Linguists have always known that words have power. Therefore, words should be carefully chosen to reflect not only meaning but intended connotation. Compare how you feel when you think to yourself, "I am governed" and "I am served" then you begin to understand the differences in connotation between the two words. When the legislative and executive branches contemplate the vast many policies, you want them primarily to have a servicing mindset as opposed to a controlling mindset. Subsequently, only after having the prerequisite healthy and correct mindset, you want leaders to consider what policies are in the best interest of the people.
So, the activity and psychological state of leadership should also be tempered by the deliberate tone and intentions of the words describing them. Accordingly, service to the people should be emphasized over control.
Changing a name (nomenclature) is not a difficult change. This change neither removes nor adds formal powers outlined in the constitution. However, it does add the informal power of words to serve the people. It emphasizes leadership service over control psyche to both elected leaders and represented citizens. It discourages the psychologies and subsequent pursuits of domination and omnipotence. It encourages service mentalities among present and future leadership entities.
Sample name changes: National Service Bureau, Federal Leadership Council, National Leadership Bureau.
http://humanitytest.org/global-cooperation-proposal/#psyche-shift
Farid,
Concerning your comments regarding the "undemocratic" nature of the Senate. The Senate was created by the framers of the constitution for the express purpose of preventing the more populous states from dominating the more sparsely populated states. It still performs that function today when the function could be more properly described as preventing the Liberal states from riding rough-shod over the Conservative states, God Bless the US Senate!
You're right about the reason for having the Senate the was it is; however, your description for what it accomplishes, "preventing the Liberal states from riding rough-shod over the Conservative states" is a ticket that flies both ways.
Indeed it does, and I support it in both directions; perhaps more properly stated: it prevents the "tyranny of the majority", as does the Constituiton itself.
In that case, we're on the same page.
1-elect the president by a direct popular vote
2-give the president a line veto to eliminate pork barrel
3-modernize congress by changing the role of the senate(2 senators per state is obsolete)
4-give education the top priority, the future of the country is at stake
5-work on curing the worst social desease: lawyers
Taking your points in order:
1) OK, but a close election will always be contested no matter what the method, and I'd hate to live through a nationwide recount, Florida was bad enough.
2) Great idea, but unlikely to pass.
3) You don't understand the purpose of the Senate, read my post above.
4) The primary responsibility for our children's education lies with the parents not the
Federal government.
5) Everybody hates lawyers until they need one, what we need is tort reform.
In my opinion, at least two items need to be updated in the Constitution; 1. The electoral college. The election of our president by popular vote is the only thing that makes any sense. 2. The allocation of representatives in the Senate. Of course, I live in California. My senators represent 39+ million people. In Alaska the senators represent about 600,000 or 700,000 people.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes – 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The fix would be to undo what was done in 1913. Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act. What the Founding Fathers forgot to tell us is that we should all read their essays so we know why they put certain provisions in the Constitution. Essay 64 explains why Senators were appointed by the state legislators and their purpose in Congress. They would represent the states from which they came instead of special interests that financed their re-elections. The Fed controls the value of the US Dollar and have de-valued it to the point that our purchasing power is almost worthless and they now reach into the taxpayers wallet to pay for their Keynesian fantasies. Wake up America!
(a) Pass new amendment: Flat Tax.
(2) Repeal old amendment: Repeal 17th Amendment (Senators elected by direct popular vote). Reason: I doubt if much over 10% of the populace know who the state legistators that represent their own districts are. If senators were elected by their state legislatures, like the original Constitution intended, then Americans would take more interest in their government - beginning at the local level - and gradually gain more of an orderly and knowledgable say over, initially, the direction of their community, and subsequently, the direction that their country was heading.
The obsession with National Politics is having the unintended consequence of eroding the involved participation of the electorate in its own government.
I couldn't agree more.
The three changes to the constitution:
1) REMOVE any and all references to God or any religion from any aspect of government. Remove all aspects of governmental intervention with anything having to do with religious opinion. The government should be 100% free of any type of regulation regarding any aspect of any religion.
2) Remove the ability to have a "career politician". In both the house and senate the terms should be revamped and restricted. Career politician should be done away with.
3) Remove the electoral college in voting for the presidential office and establish a national voting system.
1.Our Supreme Court has amended the Constitution by its decisions, and this was never the intent of the founders or the ratifiying colonists. Creating the right to choose for women is contrary to the laws against abortion in both the majority of colonies, and the others followed British law that prohibitted abortion of children.
2. Courts and judges place themselves above the Constituton by claiming they have "judicial immunity". However, that immunity is not granted them anywhere in our Constitution and judges have failed to uphold the Constitution and then claim immunity. That immunity must be removed by our new amendments.
3. Removal of any judge, Congressman, by the people by a simple majority withing the area covered by the judge or Congressman.
4. Uphold the intent of the 14th Amendment, and no person born here of illegal parent shall be a citizen and all those born under those circumstances have no claim to citizenship.
5. No benefit to any illegal unless his country of citizenship pays for it.
Just some ideas. Impeachment of judges was to be common, quick and often and today we let judges amend our laws and Constitution in ways the founders never considered and wouldnt accept.
The Constitution is difficult to amend for a reason. Because the enduring nature of our Constitution is remarkable, we shouldn't make it too easy to amend. While there are undoubtedly some changes that would be beneficial, I think our elected officials (like them or not) and the American public have more pressing challenges ahead of us without this suggestion. (As someone who lives in California, witness what has happened with the wacky propositions we face every election. That process has helped land California in the economic crisis it is in today.)
I would prefer to see Global Public Square stay focused on international events, rather its current drift to being a platform for Fareed Zakaria's personal opinions. He is a very interesting and thoughtful person, but think he should stick to moderating discussions on important global events. I look forward to watching the show, largely because it covers topics that aren't addressed elsewhere. If the show starts to follow the same path as all the other Sunday shows (domestic politics, over and over), I'll just stick to my newspaper.
One Man or Woman, One Vote.
I feel that citizenship should be limited to human beings that are born inside the United States or naturalized. No rights of citizenship should be bestowal to any corporation or organization. This would include The Railroad companies and Exon. It would also include AFLCIO and AARP.
Only then can we truly reform campaign funding and allow elected officials to get back to representing use and back to governing.
Do away with the senate and have the president elected by the house. This would make our republic more Democratic.
No reported taxes, no vote.
i think an amendment limiting supreme court justices having any political bias would be good. judges should not be able to contribute or belong to any political parties at any level of court.
The United States is not a democracy. Read the constitution; the word "democracy" is nowhere to be found. Why? Because we were founded as a constitutional republic.
Our government was founded on the basis of preserving the inalienable rights of the individual. Thus, a representative government was intentionally established with checks and balances on power.
The Electoral College is absolutely essential because it is a representative body that checks the arbitrary will of the majority from voting away individual rights - and it balances power among all states by preventing candidates with only regional appeal from winning elections.
Before you revise the constitution – why don’t actually read it.
Thomas Jefferson: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not protect the two-party system. It simply discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The only thing the current system does is to punish candidates whose support is broadly based.
oldgulph,
I am not sure what you are responding to, but I never said the United States didn’t have a “republican” form of government. I said, the “United States isn’t a democracy.”
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, our political system was not established to safeguard political parties – it was designed to protect individual rights by checking and balancing power.
A proper republic is a system of government which is limited by the individual rights of its citizens. In other words, citizens vote (primarily to elect local representatives on their behalf), but individual rights are not subject to majority vote. Having electoral representatives (versus one-man-one-vote) is absolutely necessary because it serves as a check on the power of the central government and balances power. And checks and balances are what protect us from anyone individual or group from gaining too much power.
The strength of our constitution is in its' structural design and not attacking specific issues. Here are my three amendments:
1) Open Elections Amendment
Elections are Federalized and given a structure of "one set of rules", this set to allow fair elections among all parties and not just the top two. Also, Gerrymandering is struck down once and for all.
2) Liberty Amendment
This simply stated is the idea that "You own you and that this cannot be taken away without due process of law for a criminal act." Here you own your personal information, your likeness and your ideas. This would be the end of the paparazi as well as confining contracts where companies can steal your ideas and works. This also make it a criminal act to commit an act of slavery. This includes prostitution, and imported servants.
3) Justice Amendment
This better defines the roles of judge, jury and attorneys. It strips the ability of a judge to "make law from the bench", it set the District Attorney in control of proceedure with assigning both prosecution and defense. No attorney outside the court structure can participate in the trial and no court attorney can be exclusively prosecution or defense. This amendment also reforms our Supreme Court. The new court has only seven justices. Each year, one justice is rotated off the court and a new judge is rotated on. The new justice will serve for only seven years with his last year becoming the Chief Justice. The Chief Justices major act for his year is to send a list of 3 to 5 candidates to Congress to be selected from for the next justice. The Chief Justice is required by this amendment to maintain a balance on the High Court between right, left and center. The center may hold no less than three seats.
These are the amendments to the US Constitution that I would like to see. What do you think?
To argue that the Const'n needs updating is to buy into the Tea Party idea that it's gone away and must be brought back by those of us who carry it around (I always have the GPO copy in my briefcase). Tea Partiers' problem is that few of them speak as if they've ever read it. To the point:
The problem is not the Constitution but the fact that its fundamental assumption of compromise within and between the three branches that it empowers has been significantly impaired by ever more rampant ideologically frozen political positions, the worst result being the abuse of the rules of the US Senate. More filibusters have been threatened or implemented under Mitch McConnell's leadershipin the Senate than in all the previous years of its functionality under the present Constittution. Sen. John Kerry of my native state has been making that case quietly for some months that this is the real reason why so many Americans believe (superfically, in my view) that the national government is broken. Sen. Kerry's point hasn't received much attention in the media. Fareed, please, please ventilate this issue – just the facts, I'm not suggesting an attack on McConnell, which Kerry has not done and which your thoughtful and always well mannered style would not permit anyway. It's the Senate rules, Fareed, not the Constitution. The fact that it was written 222 years ago is not important because what they wrote then was intended to implement the great virtues learned in Western Civilization from the time of the Greek city states, which many of them knew a lot about since they could read that language. Our more fundamental problem derives from the infusion of contemporary politics with religiosity cum fanaticism. There were no fanatics at Constitution Hall in the hot summer of 1787. We've got a few in high places in these stressful times. The passing of the WW II generation is costing this polity a very great deal.
I would like to see a Health Freedom Amendment giving us the right of total domain over our bodies without exception, (including martial law or public health issues) to choose whatever medical treatment we, the individual, deems useful including the right to refuse any we, the individual, deems harmful. This would include freedom to advertise, acquire or disseminate information about health without limitation including all alternatives to current medical practice without fines or penalty. Currently we do not possess these freedoms!
Dear Fareed:
Yes, it should be. Let's try this:
1.
All presidents, must, at the end of their term stand trial by a jury made up of 30 people, chosen by a lottery. Through this jury shall be judged whether, he or she has acted in the true interest of the people as a whole in accordance with the rule of law. A 2/3's finding against a president shall carry the criminal charge of treason.
2.
The people can, at any time, by wish of a 60% majority dissolve congress as a whole, resulting in new elections.
3.
Elections, can be financed only by a publicly funded pool, through which an equal sum is to be allotted to all candidates. As a free service and public platform for all candidates a publicly funded television station shall be established, here all candidates shall receive equal air time. A legitimate candidate is he or she who shall present a petition of 10.000 signatures. All candidates who wish to run for the presidency of the US shall appear (alphabetically) on the ballot, allowing for multiple party-line candidacies.
Why do we have some FOREIGNER making such suggestions? FAREED IS NOT A REAL AMERICAN!!
icarus_101@yahoo.com
A suggestion to rewrite our constitution because a "civil" nation such as Greenland is doing that and doing it successfully does not take into consideration the country does not have a "melting pot" for their citizenship.
Term limits:
Senate 2 – 6 year terms (12 years)
Congress 6 – 2 year terms
When civil servants can be in office so long they become millionaires – there is a problem.
Congress = Senate + House of Representatives
All the post saying that the Constitution should not be updated nor ever updated must be for Slavery, women not voting, not voting for the president, not voting for the direct election of senators and allowing the states to determine who gets to vote.
As for my three amendments:
The right to health care
Spending limits on elections based on %GDP
Public Service requirement for those 18-20 for 2 years (be it military, peace corps, etc)
Reform the patent process, seeds and human genes should not be patented
Read the federalist papers, study history, and get back to us. Ignorant statement.
The only way out of this MESS that Congress and Presidents got us into is to AMEND the CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT LAW THAT THE FEDERAL BUDGET IS BALANCED, OR THE CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT PAID. We just did this in CALIFORNIA- and GUESS WHAT they passed a balanced budget ON TIME for the 1st TIME in a DECADE. We need a Constitutiional Convention to do THIS, because THEY will NOT REIGN IN THEIR OWN CORRUPTION. While we're at it. We must make it ILLEGAL for any PRESIDENT TO LAUNCH any MILITARY OPERATIONS without CONSENT of CONGRESS. AND, we must PROVIDE for NATIONAL REFERENDA so that we CAN CONTROL THESE IDIOTS without having to HOLD any more CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS.
I like how you CAPITALIZED THE IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES just like how the 18th Century journalists did, even if this was not your intent.
In any event, I would be happy to have another Constitutional Convention if only certain things were off limits in the revision process. For example, the stipulation that the United States cannot in any circumstances incorportate any religion or religious sentiment into its government. That would be bad for religion, spirituality, and government. And it would be all too likely that in a popular revision process that people would try to pull things like that.
...oh, and I'd have to be a delegate, of course
I completely agree with your comments, and please consider the Democracy amendment we are proposing in an Article V Constitutional Convention that would shift power from the lobbyists and Members of Congress to the majority of citizens who have the power to approve all legislation and judicial decisions that impact the majority. Details are on my Braun2012.US website and are also posted below.
In order to "promote the general welfare" we need to determine what "general welfare" means. I believe that "general" is refering to everyone, every US citizen and every person in the US. I believe that "welfare" refers to those things that we deem everyone needs to have a good quality of life, our infastructure if you will. So what do we deem necessary for a good quality of life? What do we as a nation believe each person should have available to them? Other than roads, utilitiy lines, monetary system, and regulations to keep fairness, we need to include quality healthcare and education since those things are a part of our way of life and vital to the health of each person and the nation as a whole.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSTITUTION REVISION/CHANGES:
1. PEACE, NO POLICING. NO PREEMPTIVE WARS. SOLVE PROBLEMS IN WORLD BY DIALOGUE/DISCUSSION
AND STRATEGY. NO WARS.....SAVE TRILLLLLLLLLLLIONS.
2. NO AID TO COUNTRIES, EXCEPT THE POOR DESERVING NATIONS THROUGH U.N ORGANIZATIONS.
MAKE OUR ECONOMY STRONG.
3. GUARANTEE THROUGH FEDS/STATE, SHELTER, FOOD, CLOTHING, HEALTH, BASIC EDUCATION TO ALL RESIDENTS.
FURTHER, ELIMINATE ELECTORAL VOTING. TAKE CARE OF SENIORS, NO CUTS IN SOCIAL SECURITY
OR MEDICARE.
EXCELLENT SUGGESTIOS.
Amendments I feel we need:
1)To be a country led truly by the people for the people, no religious or corporate institutions shall be allowed to contribute to an election in any way, shape, or form.
2)Lobbyist cannot contribute gifts or money to a politician in any way, shape, or form. They must be heard only in the same level the voice for the people are heard.
3)A balanced system using modern technology must be developed to truly give national elections one vote per citizen and must be used not only to elect officials, but also to pass national laws that will truly affect every citizen.
And if I could have suggested just one more, I'd suggest an amendment prohibiting states from passing laws that make it nearly impossible for a citizen to exercise rights declared constitutional by the supreme court.
Three constitutional amendments:
1. Balanced spending – With exception of a properly and formally declared war or of a national disaster, the federal budget must be balanced such that in any given presidential term (4 years cumulative) the spending must equal or be less than the federal income for that same period. No exceptions. Social security, medicare and all other government spending will count. Any surplus shall be retained and accounted for and shall be used only for federal infrastructure, supplemental (i.e., not replacement/substitution) education costs or services, or scientific research. As part of this spending bill, the costs for running for office shall be provided by a public fund, whereby everyone receives the same amount, and the amount shall be proportional to the office being sought, as determined by congress. A candidates worthiness for being in public office shall now include judgement of their ability to run a campaign within a fiscal constraint.
2. Lobbying is Illegal – Lobbying should have been found by now to be unconstitutional as it violates the equal protection clause. Nonetheless, it should be clarified: In this republic of one person one vote, lobbying shall not be permitted. It shall be up to the congress to solicit information, education, data and obtain situation awareness for the purposes of governing and writing laws. No group, corporation, organization or other entity other than an individual citizen shall be allowed to solicit congress for rules, regulations, governmental changes or laws, nor provide unilateral information that could potentially be used to draft bills or laws.
3. Health Care – Right after the guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be that every citizen shall be guaranteed the same healthcare as those in service of the congress. Federally chartered and/or managed healthcare shall be used (at the option of individual citizens) when the private sector has been unable or unwilling to provide healthcare coverage all citizens. The creation of a consumption tax shall pay for U.S. Healthcare.
I'd love to add a fourth: In order to run for public office you shall be required to have a college education/degree and prove that your IQ is at least 95 on an independently operated standardized test.
The most important amendment to the Constitution that I would suggest is a revision of the 3-branch government system. This amendment would keep the three branches, but it would establish that the actions of every person who works for any of the three branches of government with any level of authority or ability to affect other citizens' life through the course of his/her employment with any government (i.e. through decisions or rulings or awards or application denials, or document issuance or arrests or detentions or execution of warrants, etc.) are subject to review and scrutiny by a new government accountability body.
This would include elected staff, appointed staff and hired staff, including the president, president's staff, governor and staff, senators and representatives, Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges, clerks of Court, cabinet members, police officers, customer-facing clerks at all government officers, backroom underwriters and decision-makers, and anyone else whose actions or decisions can routinely affect other people's lives.
In other words, this constitutional amendment would create a segregation between ordinary citizens on one side, and people with government authority on the other side.
The new government accountability body would consist of a mini government whose sole purpose is to ensure that these employees of government are accountable for their actions. It would include a police force dedicated to enforcing the law on all employees of the "main" government. For example, an accountability officer on a street patrol would be charged with catching ordinary police officers abusing their office or their authority. For example, we would now have someone who can instantly arrest, detain, or cite any ordinary police officer who activates his siren just before reaching a no-left-turn sign at a street intersection, makes that illegal left turn, then deactivates the siren.
The existing Government accountability office would be incorporated within this new accountability body at the federal level. The Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities would become part of Maryland's new accountability body, and it would be given teeth - the necessary authority and ability - to arrest and charge any Judge who abuses his/her discretion or authority.
The new accountability body would also consist of three branches: An executive branch, which includes police and detectives and foot patrols charged with enforcing the law on government employees and investigating abuses; a judicial branch with a civil arm responsible for litigating allegations (by normal citizens) of abuse (by government employees) as well as a criminal arm responsible for prosecuting criminal abuses (such as unwarranted use of a police patrol car's siren, police brutality, etc.); and a legislative branch responsible for fine-tuning the rules of behavior by which government employees are expected to abide (ethical behavior, procedural rules, protocol, etc)
It is very important for this accountability body to be distinct and separate from the "main" government. Most abuses of authority today occur when people in charge of investigating abuse by their fellow government employees turn a blind eye. I've never seen a police officer cite another police officer for disobeying a street sign (of course, I am not talking about police patrols disregarding street signs for the purpose of chasing a criminal or when on call for an emergency). Likewise, I have seen case after case of appeal courts affirming a lower court judge's ruling despite the fact that there is absolutely no legal basis, evidence taken into account, for that judge's ruling. I've seen judges side with parent coordinators, or with court-appointed "guardians ad litem", not because the person's opinion is correct by any measure, but because the judge knows that he/she will have to continue working with those person in the future (on other cases) so it is best to "remain friends" with them. Police brutality is almost never investigated internally by police departments unless it was caught on camera. All of these current instances of government turning a blind eye on government abuse would stop if the investigating body were a totally distinct body - as opposed to a collection "internal affairs" departments within each branch of the "main government".
This three-branch accountability body would be staffed with ordinary citizens, not "government employees" or "people with government authority". In other words, members of this accountability body would be subject to ordinary classic law enforcement and Court Orders, at all times, and never to actions of the body itself for which they work.
Members of "main" government, on the other hand, would be accountable to ordinary classic law enforcement and Court Orders while not acting within the scope of their employment within the government, but they would be accountable to the accountability body while acting within the scope of their employment.
With such a structure, we could roll into the new "accountability body" (which, I must admit, needs a better name than this) all offices of ombudsmen, "internal affairs" departments, the "government accountability office" (which, as far as I know, currently has a limited scope of authority which is dictated by Congress), commissions on judicial disabilities, and even some functions of the appellate courts.
Finally, this amendment would establish that such a government structure is mandatory at all levels - Federal, State, County, Local, City, etc. - and that all constitutions or articles of incorporation must be rewritten to establish such a structure within a given time limit (maybe 3 or 5 years) and maintain such a structure perpetually.
I find that simple one-sentence or two-sentence constitutional amendments are insufficient. An amendment must be detailed and it must remain open to fine-tuning and real life exposes weaknesses and loopholes in it.
Rewriting the Constitution would be a mistake. The strongly religious would make an effort to establish a religious base.
The representation of the population by the House of Representatives and the district representation of the Senate provides the correct level of representation, no change needed.
I'd make the following 3 amendments to the Constitution: 1 – Replace the electoral college with a 'one person/one vote' system. 2 – Election campaigns would be limited to 3 months; 3 – Campaign funding could only come from individuals and the amount would be limited.
In my opinion, our Constitution demands it be rattified every now and then, to, not only reflect the times, we find ourselves and our country living in, but to shape it as well. The whole purpose of the constitution was to do just that. I think, our founding fathers must be rolling in there graves, to think that we look at the Constitution as some holy grail, that can't be touched nor altured.
I think the concern about having a Constitutional Convention and any changes would be "who is doing the changing". If it is our politicians, I vote no, they are the ones who have gotten us into this mess. We the people are the ones allowing the politicians to continuing down their own path, not our path.
Mr. Zakaria,
I had the opportunity to watch your show this morning. I evened missed part of the coverage of the US Open to watch your guest talk about Iran.
After watching Mr. Reich and Mr. Stockman debate the key issues of our time, and your own statement recognizing the success of our Constitution it appears to me the issue of changing our constitution is a mute point at this time.
We clearly have much more important issues to address than trying to perfect a document that has worked for 222 years. The constitution may have challenges, however, the challenges are debatable and they pale in comparison to the current economic situation we face.
This country and its leaders must focus and address the issues debated by Mr. Stockman and Mr. Reich. Failure to do so may result in the country revisiting its constitution, and fittingly it will be when its citizens are desperate. We are not yet desperate and hopefully that time will not come anytime soon.
Best regards.
In many ways this is a case of semantics. The word that was used to describe the articles of the US constitution is amendments, the reason being that they amend or rectify a specific failure from the past. Since they are amendments, they themselves can be amended, or removed, when the redress they seek to provide is no longer an issue. Look at Prohibition for instance.
With this in mind, one could argue that those who crafted the Constitution intended it to be an organic document that would be able to respond to the times it found itself in. If the founders intended it to be a static and unchangeable document, they would not have included methods for adding new amendments in the future.
If all men are created equal, why do adults age 21 have more rights than an adult that is 18?? I'm in my late 40's and have never understood how an 18 year old can die for his/her country and yet can't purchase alcohol until they're 21. Is'nt this Age Discrimination?
If the men who wrote the Constitution of the Untied
States had been able to foreseen how politicians
would become so influenced by private interest
along with their own financial gain rather than
the doctrine of civic duty their title bestows them.
I believe they would have written Article 1 section
1 thru 9; Article 2 section 1; and Article 3 section 1;
very differently.
The three changes I would like to see incorporated into
the Constitution are as follows:
1. Concerning the Executive branch of Government:
To have the President of the United States of America
elected into office ONE time for a term of SIX years.
This way the time spent in office would not be as
influenced by the politics of being reelection, which
consequently would make the term in office that more
productive. It would also make the burden of cost
associated with reelections much more conversably.
2. Concerning the Judiciary branch of Government:
Each Supreme Court Justice Should sever no more
than EIGHTEEN years with SIX of the Justices being
change every THREE years. With the cases they are
assigned to being determine by a random non patrician
manor.
3. Concerning the Congressional branch of Government
along with the Governors and other electoral Officials
of each State:
Members of the Senate should have their elections
coincide with the Governors of each state every with one
election every EIGHT years, each being limited to ONE
term in office. With the elections being designed so ONE
quarter of the electoral races taking place every two year.
Members of House of Representatives would then have
their elections held with the other State elected officials
every FOUR years each being able to being able to serve
no more than THREE terms or TWELVE years in office.
I would like to see more clarity around the boundaries of federal, state and local governments. In the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In the 10th, "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."
Unlike the times of the Constitution's authors, today's citizens and the economy are less defined by county, state or national boundaries. The Federal government should be able to set minimum standards and enforcement for, e.g. education/curriculum, health services, marriage, death/survivorship, age of adulthood, etc.
One can't be legally married in one state and not another;
One should not be able to move to one state or another soley to ease marriage, divorce, custody or child support
One should be able to die with consistency on one state or another
One can't be a deluded into thinking one is getting an 'A' school in one state that would be a 'C' education in
another;
One should not have to move to a different county or state in order to get different health care access.
Other topics are covered under interstate commerce laws or other agencies, but health, education, adulthood and life cycle events should be predominantly consistent nationwide.
I think campaign finance reform is needed to make politicians accountable to us and not to big business or to unions. I would amend the Constitution to permit contributions only from a registered voter and to cap the amount at, say, $500 per candidate or political initiative.
Is constitution preventing any powerful influential politician from doing anything? Careful appointment of supreme court justices, 5-4 ruling and heavy lobbying on congress did accomplish whatever powerful politician had vision for america. If politician want patriot act, they get patriot act. Constitution is not in the way of anything. What is big deal? I don't get it.
I fear it may be too late as our politicians have us just as they want us(struggling between republicans and democrats),but if through some quirk of political serendipity constitutional amendments were under pursuit I would
offer these suggestions 1)balanced budget
2 )single term president(6 or 8 years so he or she could really nail what they promised).
3)separate wall street and the banks
Always look forward to your show-Ray H.
2)6year presidential term(no worries about re-election,President could really nail what he promised).
While creating a debt limit sounds appealing, it would cause many problems. Our country has had a debt since the Jackson administration and it has worked out very well for us. A very large debt, like we have now, is a problem but debt itself is good. If a debt limit was to be amended to the constitution, it would handcuff lawmakers and would not allow them to solve economic problems. Whether you like it or not, the most effective time to send money is in a crisis. Budgets should be balanced when things are going well, like the 90s. I would create these 3 amendments. 1) Like Fareed said, the electoral system needs to be reformed to makes sure if a candidate wins the majority of the votes, he or she wins the election. 2) Make all corporate contributions to elections illegal or at least limit them. 3) Make same-sex marriage legal throughout the entire country to ensure equal rights for all people.
What is needed is a Second Continental Congress. A handful of amendments will only be bandaids on a body politic that bleeds profusely.
The focus of this congress should be to first re-envision a future for America from where we are now – not based on where we were in the pre-Revolutionary era. It should also include some type of Truth and Redconciliation program that allows us as a people recognize all the evil, unfair, egregious acts that we as a people have taken – with the hope that we forge a new governance which avoids that.
And then, we need to look at how to create a government that limits the natural tendencies of any beuracracy to grow and grow and grow over time.
Also – we need to create a government that supports citizens to partner with the government to support its potential in what it strives to be.
A means for calling for future continental congresses every hundred or so years should be put in place.
One potential constitutional amendment which I find important would be to establish that all U.S. citizens, including past and current presidents of the USA, are subject to the authority of the International Court of Justice.
For example, if any Iraqi citizen wishes to sue George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney for the killing of his child, that Iraqi citizen should be able to do so and the U.s. government must place Mr. Bush and/or Mr. Cheney at the ICJ's disposition. The possibility of dismissing the case would be at the ICJ's discretion only.
I remember once hearing John Bolton on Fox News commenting on images of Mr. Barack Obama shaking the Saudi King's hand and slightly bowing his head in respect for this foreign sovereign. Mr. Bolton said "No American, president or not, bows to foreign royalty!" Such arrogance must be banned at the Constitutional level. I am not, of course, suggesting that Mr. Bolton's freedom of speech - or Fox News' for that matter - be curtailed in any way; I am only suggesting that this type of mentality is being extrapolated too far and if the USA continues to act with such arrogance by obstructing or dismissing the UN's and the ICJ's work when the UN's or ICJ's work is not in the best interests of a group of Americans, then there remains no justice in this world.
If - and I mean IF - a president lied by making up an allegation that Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire uranium for a WMD program, and if such lie led Congress to approve preemptive war, and if the said president sidestepped the United Nations and took his country (along with 30+ other countries) to war against a sovereign nation, causing the death of millions of people who would have preferred to stay alive under Saddam's despotic regime, then there should be a constitutional mechanism which allows the International Court of Justice to prosecute the said president for millions of murder / manslaughter charges.
But of course, if the truth is that the said president did not commit any crimes and did not lie to anyone, then let the ICJ make that finding and acquit the said president.
In regards to the blatant close mindedness about amending the Constitution, recognize that it was Thomas Jefferson himself that said " Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence...too sacred to be touched; who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples."
As for proposed amendments:
1) Abolish the electoral college which distorts national elections for Prez, putting all of the focus on swing states and none on the majority of the American people.
2) Independent drawing of districts so as to prevent Gerrymandering and distorted elections that are drawn by political motivations
3) Major restrictions on corporate/Union and Labor/individual donations to campaigns AND political action committees.
4) Abolish the primaries for nomination! All they do is drag out elections (which require candidates to need more money, leading to corruption), give the choice for nominee in the hands of more extremists who vote in these elections (see the effect of Christian rightests, etc. on early primary season), and give undue influence to Iowa and New Hampshire. Let the party decide their own nominee. Most likely it will be a more moderate candidate that will appeal to independents because they still need to win elections.
5) Voting for Prez should be a national holiday, which will enfranchise millions more who are restricted by work schedules, time, from voting as easily.
6) Give citizens in DC a right to presidential vote/member of congress.
The most important recommendation made by Jefferson was that because things would change we should have a non-violent revolution every 20 years and re-write the constitution. There is a new one which can be found on the site http://www.democraticroad.com and it is called "True Freedom – The Road to the First Real Democracy". Herein lies support for the basic belief in real personal rights along with the related responsibilities.
Although I disagree with some of Fareed's details or points (abolishing the electoral college system and changing the number of senators per each state's population), I do agree that it is a good idea to revise a document that was written in a very different age by a limited representation base (all white, Christian, relatively rich males). America, whether one likes it or not, is not a country of white Christian males – nor was it ever a country of white Christian males. Even the founding fathers had very different views of what constituted being an American (especially noting the difference between the North and South's view of citizenship).
I must circle back to the things that Fareed wants to get rid of, because I feel these are important. First, the electoral college. After originally wanting to abolish it myself, then giving this idea much thought and research, I believe that keeping the electoral college actually does make sense. Alexander de Tocqueville wrote way back in 1835 in his "Democracy in America" that America had the potential to become a "tyranny of the majority" if guided solely by the idea of democracy. Although it is nice to think that the Congress, Supreme Court, or Constitution would protect the rights of the minority in this pure democratic system, the majority could vote to rework all of those institutions, even if it was totally irrational. Thus, I do believe that in the end, a republic does make some sense, considering that it is not a system that is based solely on the belief systems or culture of the majority. The minority might still have to fight for equal rights (which of course is deplorable, but that's life…I speak from experience on this knowing what it is to be a minority), but at least they cannot be stripped entirely of their rights by one quick vote.
Secondly, the Senate is not by populace of the states, that is why there is a House of Representatives. The HoR gives representation based on a state's population; the Senate gives 2 senators to each state, regardless of the population. This was done out of a compromise to make sure that both small states and large states had equal representation at the federal level. One can argue that perhaps the Senate has way more power than the HoR, which I would be inclined to agree with, however I do not think that changing the number of Senators would make sense in this scenario – changing the number of representatives in the HoR might. Changing how much power is in either house's hand is the key, which could potentially be one of the revisions made to our Constitution.
Finally, to move on to revising the Constitution. I am probably echoing what other people have already said, but the people that we elect to represent us should not make laws that benefit only them. It alienates those who govern from those who are governed and gives our elected representatives more power than they are supposed to have. I think that is one of the most important changes we could make.
We should also make sure that Federal representatives are elected by the state governments, as was mentioned already also. New York’s Federal Senators would be voted on by the New York state assembly and state senate. Everyone would care more about their local elections if they knew that their federal representation depended on their state representation. Perhaps people would consider newer, fresher politicians to represent them in their state assembly or state senate rather than continually vote for the incumbent just because he is a familiar face and hasn’t made too many mistakes.
Something simply must be done about the way money is used during election campaigns and while people are in office. I truly believe that all politicians’ bank accounts should be made public, which obviously sounds like a breach in privacy, and maybe it is. I just feel that if politicians were truly held accountable to the public for every dollar that they received during campaigns and while in office, there would potentially a lot less corruption. We simply do not know how our elected officials are using money, no matter how hard we try lately. But if we could see that Senator So-and-so from Wyoming received $1 million dollars from a person who was undoubtedly tied with corporation X or union Y, then perhaps we would be able to realize that said senator was corrupt.
#1 The electoral college is an 18th century anachronism. It should be deleted and the president elected by popular vote.
#2 The House of Representatives is unbalanced. There is no definition in the Constitution as to the size of the Congressional Districts; however, the intent of the Founders is that it be based upon population. This lack of definition has led to injustice and litigation. The solution is to define the size of a Congressional District by the lowest common denominator. Currently, that is the State of Wyoming which has the smallest State Population (550,000). Therefore, all Congressional Districts would be of 550,000 people. This would allow the House of Representatives to be based upon population and would avoid the absurdity of different sized Congressional Districts or a state losing congressional representatives even though it grew in population.
#3 The Senate is also an 18th Century anachronism. It should be reformed to allow more representation of persons by first increasing its number to 150 members; second, each state should be guaranteed at least one senator which would account for 50 of the senators. The other 100 senators would be allocated to the states on the basis of population, above the minimum. For example, the population of the U.S. (about 310 Million) divided by 100 yeilds a "District" of 3 Million people. Thus every state with a population of 3 Million or less gets their one Senator. After that each state would get an additional Senator for every additional 3 Million in population. States with more than one Senator would be required to have single member Senatorial Districts. Thus, Wyoming would get one Senator; California would get @ 13 Senators; Texas would get @ 7 Senators, etc.
RE: YOUR #3 FLYS IN THE FACE OF ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that NO STATE, WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF ITS EQUAL SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE.
My Amendments to the Constitution would be: 1. Limit the use of the filibuster by the Senate. Perhaps 3 or 4 per term for legislation, and 1 or 2 per each Presidential appointment. Like "timeouts" in sports, the use of the filibuster shouldn't be unlimited. 2. Set up an apparatus to call for national referendums on matters of federal law or policy, thus allowing the most important issues to be decided by a true majority. 3. Just as there is a census reflecting changes in the population, seat a constitutional congress perhaps every 20 years to examine and employ amendments to to constitution. This to account for changes in technology and public mores.
The constitution and republic our forefathers conceived has been, in my humble opinion, the best approach through history to date for governing. However, there was one key aspect that they could not have foreseen. We now face problems that stem from a system that requires officials be reelected every 2-6 years causing a relatively short-term focus . I believe the absence of a structure to provide for a long-term focus is our greatest challenge in governing and sustaining ourselves. That is an issue that could be solved by a change in the constitution. But how?
One approach would be to create/maintain a long-term goal-setting group that would be staffed by the top people, possibly retired, in a variety of fields representative of our country. The members would be compensated in a way to limit outside influences. That group would set a limited number of long-term U.S. goals that the govenment would then have to work towards and achieve within its current structure of lawmaking. How that would be implemented and overseen would need to be developed.
This approach is but one idea to deal with our current short-term election-cycle focus, but I believe we do need to revise our system to allow us to govern with a long-term view.
I proposed that the US Constitution be revised to:
1) Replace the Electoral College with a secure, Internet-based voting method.
2) Eliminate earmarks.
3) Eliminate the current system of lobbying to preclude the current vote-buying, government controlling method.
Thanks, Rick
Amendments to the Constitution:
1. Public financing of Local, State, and Federal elections – taking a hard line against the Citizens United decision and the massive influx of coporate money in politics
2. Certain social and economic guarantees as rights, most importantly allowing for equal access to education and healthcare – this overturns the San Antonio Schools decision of Nixon's Supreme Court and puts us back on track to pieces of FDR's vision for a proposed "second bill of rights"
3. Presidential elections are to be decided by popular vote – I won't go so far as to say the Electoral College should be completely abolished, but we cannot afford another Bush v. Gore outcome
The thought of changes to the constitution in and of itself will create serious difficulty for the heart of this country. Its people. I believe only a complete collapse of the Federal Government could force a review of the Constitution. Who or what will lead the citizens in confronting such a National Emergency can only be speculated. Internal attitudes to our country's ability to govern itself is facing great sceptisism by its people. It is in this setting that the strength of its people will face its greatest challanges since the founding of this nation. History constantly presents evidence that the fall of ALL forms of governments collapse from within. We are not infallible we are made up of many groups of people (Political, Religious, Humanist, Cultures, Capitalists. Socialist etc. etc) and there will always be tensions between these verious segmants of our citizens. The attitude of the founding fathers was greatly influence by events of their times, for example they were treated as a Colonly of people with no representation. The irony is the founding fathers practice the same tactics with some of its people: Slavery, Women"s Rights, Denial of free speach and many other infringements of human rights that was removed over a period of time thru a long and painful process. The greatest strength of the constitution lies in its greatest weakness. A document produced by men during a period of the human history that changed for ever the landscape for advancement and development of life. In my limited knowledge the only other document in Western history that came close in its import was the Magna Carter.
I am an average citizen of this country, an immigrant, a retired Air Force enlistee (1954 to 1976) a Viet Nam vet and the proud Grandfather of a Grand Daughter who was decorated with the Bronze Star with V for Valor for combat action in Afganhastean. I have a formal 8th grade education, I am self educated. Now in my 77th year will never be a leader, politican or the "American Dream" story. However I am a small part of the spine of this country. My children and grand children have made and continue to make significant contribution to America. I believe it would be extremely health if every 100 years a period of time be set aside for a national debate and review of the constition of these United States. Many times over the period of my life I have seen and been part of events that upon reflects make no personal sence to me, however inspite of thise dark and catastrofic times we survive. The terrible events of the past 77 years: WW2, Korean War, VNWar, Irag, Afganhastan, The Cold War, 9/11 Twin Towers attack, Natural desasters such as Katrina and the like. Nuclear disassters (Three Mile Island). Not only did we survive but look at what we accomplished in Health, Space, Life Expectancy, Standard of Living etc. "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time" Abe Lincoln.
As for a thought provoking change to the Constitution. How about this. That the districts and States who elect their representative be the ones who pay and provide reimbursement for the expenses incurred by their elected official.
Of course the Constitution should be updated! It was the intent of the Founders, evident in the amendments process. It also simply makes sense. Given that the foundation of our government itself grew out of the Enlightenment period, when reason was supreme, it seems clear what we should do, and continue to do.
Why should we not strive to become a, "more perfect union"?
-------
Amendments:
I would recommend a revised and clearly stated definition of the roll of the judiciary, in which any powers granted to the Supreme Court would be enumerated instead of merely implied. This is more of a "tidying up" measure than anything else. It should be done with care, however.
Abolishment of the Electoral College. One person one vote.
Removal of the need to be a natural born American from the requirements to be President. Frankly, I thought this far before the current President, so no, “birthers”, preserving what you think is his illegitimate presidency is not among my motivations on this one. Instead, it is clear to me that this part of the Constitution was created for a purpose which it no longer serves: keeping agents sent by the British from tricking themselves into a presidency, and/or keeping the clever, West Indies born, suspected monarchist Alexander Hamilton from becoming President. In the past, it would have been rather difficult to discern the background and true life history of those running for office. Today, if the American voters have an issue with a foreign born President, you better believe we would find out which candidates were and were not born here, and vote accordingly. So, why ban the running of such a candidate outright? Why, other than a misplaced sense of nationalism, or thinly disguised xenophobia?
I think some more elements of the "fourth branch" (agencies, government created offices, etc.) should be set down within the Constitution. In observing my government's functioning on C-SPAN and through reading the news, it often strikes me how remarkably efficient some fourth branch agencies can become when allowed to do their own thing (within regulatory guidelines, of course). The people in these specialized branches go into their profession generally because they truly care about whatever the agency does, unlike many megalomaniacs who run for offices. The powers, restrictions and responsibilities of the “fourth branch” should be defined more, as the second “non-directly elected” section of the government, much like the judiciary. The whole purpose of a Constitution in the first place was to define the structure, powers, restrictions, and responsibilities of the government so that instead of being rulers over the people, government would be an extended arm of the people. We should continue to define evolving elements of government so as to help maintain that purpose.
Campaign finance reform should be set in stone, and what that stone-version of the Constitution should say is: CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE, DAMNIT....and limited donations in general.
Some sort of amendment which would guarantee rights to basic healthcare, sufficient water, food, shelter, and education. Nothing specific, simply so that the rights would "be there". Much as why so many Americans were keen to have the Bill of Rights set down in the Constitution, or else not ratify it.
Amending the amendment process to create a process in which national referendums on proposed amendments may be triggered, then for a (large!) majority of citizens to be able to amend the Constitution directly.
And, most importantly to me, we should lower, if not abolish, age restrictions on Congressional (and perhaps even Presidential) office. Humans become mature at different rates, and some of the most brilliant people have their best moments in their youth. Why not allow a dedicated and ambitious 18 year old to run for such an office?
If people did not want a young person in office, they simply don't vote for them. My final point for this cause: the younger a citizen is the more stake they have in the future of the country.
---
Thank you Fareed, for making this an issue to be discussed. If I had a belief in reincarnation, I would swear you might be James Madison returned to us. Although, I am sure you would have had a better presidency.
Finally, after two decades someone with some clout is talking like me. (Your show should be daily at prime time) The Constitution should be updated by a comprehensive 28th Amendment. A whole new Constitution would be the death of the US as the fascist conservative forces have too much power; any new Constitution would create a dictatorship. An improved Constitution would help level the playing field between the People and Profits. Most of the ills that plague the US and the World can be traced to the lack of a democracy in the US. The present "democratic" system is rigged against all who are not essentially rich white guys – who wrote the Constitution? Why doesn't this online article mention the online constitutional reforms going on right now in Iceland? The TV version of this article does a great job of mentioning it. Such a movement is long overdue in the US. You have the clout and means to start such a people's constitutional reform movement. If not now, WHEN? If not you, WHO?
A lot of good posts!. " There are two things the people should fear, the Government and criminals. So let's chain the Government to the Constitution, so they won't become the latter." The tax-paying citizens are the power of our Republican country. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. No where does it state that ANY (state or federal) are entitled to...Paid retirement, paid pension, free healthcare, and not having to pay in Social Security, or giving themselves pay raises. 1. Cut ALL entitlements from ALL govt. officials and workers (states to). 2. Campaign finance reform.. I agree with the shared pool. 3. Limit amount of terms. No career politicians! 4. All immigration laws period. The 14th amendment was for the African Americans and their children born here, which they deserved. Not for the illegals sneaking in, or the Chinese nationals coming over just to have babies here. One parent HAS to be an American citizen. Even our legal immigrant system is overburdening our system, which leads me into 5. Entitlement reform... There are no jobs, and our Govt. has made a lot of the American people lazy by handing over to now the 3rd. generation welfare recipients. MAKE these people work! They chose not to expand their education, and they have to realize that they are going to get the lower paying wages. I believe in helping the single working mom, but not the single, non working, keep having babies for a living and expect the working taxpayers to support them mom. That is why the Govt. keeps hollering about jobs the American people won't do so they can import more votes. Make them! By the way, I chose not to continue my education (regret, but I helped my husband finish his) I have worked in factories, and the cleaning business my whole life. They have just about eliminated all blue collar jobs for Americans with their "Americans won't do this" attitude. 4. Re-work our Judicial system. " America has more people in prison than the rest of the world combined. That tells me two things. Either we have the most evil people here on earth, or something is terribly wrong with our Judicial system. I tend to believe, it's the latter.
1. Electoral College: Eliminate the electoral college. Every vote should count!
2. Democrat/Republicans: Do away with the two-party system. Candidates and representatives need to feel the freedom to vote their conscience and not feel threatened by their own party. They, also, shouldn't have to agree with everything their party "stands" for. Voting in Congress will become more honest and productive.
3. Elections: No more campaigning. Equal time for everyone. Have all candidates speak on television. Have each candidate in a closed, sound proof booth. Have everyone answer the same questions. No more listening to the other candidate's answer. No more money from private interest groups/lobbyists.
Many have commented about the ease the US slips into expensive wars, many of questionable benefit to our country. But the public seems less and less concerned about the cost or the lives wasted, possibably due to the lack of a draft.
We need to counter this or face continuous wars and military interventions based upon politition's whims.
I think we need an admendment to immediately require war tax to pay for wars/ military actions in real time...that would certainly get the public involved and make polititions think twice. Just in case of a real emergency, we could allow an override with 2/3 affirmative vote of the house and senate.
Three things to change when adjusting Constitution: 1) Balanced budget amendment with all parties working on behalf of American people not their re-election campaign 2) Campaign finance reform to not allow corporate contributions 3) Term limits.
Better still: give each candidate 5Million Dollars, Five Months to Campaign, and one Five Year Term.
The whole document needs an overhaul. I have actually done edits in google docs. I think CNN ought to have a crowdsource edit of the constitution.
Here's my version:https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1nf1w98E4h7deolHXzMckMmSB411jGtsWUv3ZXrwpz8I&embedded=true
1. Abolish the federal reserve.
2. Abolish the IRS.
3. Term limits.
-
1) Everybody has the right to live. Human life deserves to be protected already before birth. (National Health care or highly regulated system)
2) Nobody may be deprived of his or her life. (No capital punishment)
3) Only federal financing of political campaigns. No outside money. Regulated time of political ads on television for every candidate. (Overturn the Citizens United decision.)
The last two posts from Jim and Catherine are wonderful! I am a simple citizen who TRIES to keep up with our government who controls the policies and laws that effect my life and every other citizens, but I am no expert; so this is just my opinion:
I have watched the culture of our society come to be one of distrust, disdain, and an almost complete lack of faith in our government. Corporate interest in government has become overwhelming. The ever widening socioeconomic gap in our country is a direct result of this, I feel. It seems to me that the majority of the public can plainly lay out our problems, as well as some reasonable solutions, but for some reason , we as a people, cannot even get government to address these issues in any effective manner. And their excuse, the parties cannot agree!!! We have a stagnant governing body, yet the MAJORITY of the population is calling for a solution. What is wrong with this equation??? Oh the top 2%, let me repeat, THE TOP 2 PERCENT! This is what I keep hearing about. How is it that the top 2% has enough of a say in our government that the solutions, that would benefit and is wanted by the majority of the population (even if you only count the bottom 40%, isn't that more than the top 2%) Unemployment is headed quickly to double digits and a gentlemen on your show said we should get used to unemployment rates in the teens through the teens!!! Another gentlemen was on your show speaking of Iran (or Iraq) and talking about the overthrow of Mubarek's regime and Tunisia's revolution and what led up to that: high unemployment, inflation, feeling they have no say in government, a clear division between rich and poor, UH HELLO???? Isn't this exactly what is happening here? This is happening in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq.... Also we saw rioting and unrest in Iceland and then they did a complete restructuring, Greece is at 16% unemployment, feel they are not being heard, and are rioting. Is this where we are headed? I understand our economy is way larger than all of these countries and therefore the dynamics are different (Greece for example is part of the Euro which is in 17 countries so Greece doesn't have sole say over their currency) but the framework is there to incite deep and powerful emotions from struggling Americans. With all this going on can we ATLEAST have the conversation about maybe looking at the document that structures our government and nation, that was constructed over 200 years ago? Our electorial process has become a corrupt, money-hungry process and that is NOT what it should be. Another major issue that I feel needs to be addressed is that politics has become a four-letter word in society. At one point in our history people felt the need to actually fight for the very right to vote, today we do not even discuss the issues of our politics. What is it in our culture that we have lost the interest of how we are governed? Are that many American citizens THAT disillusioned with our government that they have just tuned out?? That's just how it is.... Is that really what we are supposed to settle for??? I want more than that for the people of this nation, I believe we deserve, all people everywhere, deserve better. I hope that the recent uprisings in other areas of the world has maybe awoken some Americans to realize that we can be heard!! There are tools, technology today that makes it possible to be heard, we do not have to settle for what we have been given, we can make a change but we, WE, WE, WE, WE must be informed and active in OUR governing!!
americans are too complacent to riot like greece or egypt. they traditionally blame themselves first.
Yes, I do believe, it is high time to upgrade our constitution. I believe in one vote for one the count. G. Wharton.
I am not sure, that I am on the right comment.
Most citizens in the United States including myself share the belief that all men are created equal and have the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Hence, I believe that if a citizen pays his or her taxes, obey the laws of the land and is a productive member of society, he or she should be able to marry whomever regardless of the sex. Therefore, I think an amendment to finally enable gays and lesbians to marry (not civil union) and receive the same marital right as heterosexual couples would be one of my recommendations if we could update the U.S. Constitution.
I read somewhere that the same man who had predicted the Soviet Union's breakdown had foreseen a similar fate for the U.S. soon enough. What better way than a Constitutional Assembly? Just reading all these comments is intimidating. Since the immediate need is to resolve our fiscal crisis, how about trying to think as an American rather than as a Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal? First step: Read what George Washington had to say about it in his Farewell Address.
Only individual private citizens shall be entitled to freedom of speech, and the right of freedom of speech shall not accrue to any private corporation; neither shall private corporations be eligible to vote, contribute in money or in kind to political campaigns, nor to exercise any influence over the Federal, State, or Local public policy debate or democratic process.
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives shall serve only 12 years in that body. Members of Senate shall serve only 12 years in that body.
If only a partial term is served, then if it is greater than or equal to half a term, it counts as a whole term (2 years for a Representative, 6 years for a Senator); if less than half a term is served, that term does not count against those 12 years.
FIRST: Rusty (any anyone else), we were asked to list three "updates" not give a dissertation. Don't you really think Mr. Zakaria knows the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?
SECOND: Please do not bother to reply, debate or evaluate my three suggestions. That is NOT what was requested. Please just give your own three ideas so they can be tabulated and we can see the results.
Three suggested amendments:
1. Only singular human beings are citizens. Not corporations. Funding of elections by tax dollars paid on individual tax returns and distributed evenly. While we're at it...let's have a 6-week limit to the election run-up like the Brits...not +18 months.
2. One citizen, one vote. No more electoral college and rediculously expense "conventions."
3. Congressional changes: TERM LIMITS, Congress cannot vote themselves pay raises, they must pay into Social Security, they must purchase their own healthcare and retirement plans–like the rest of us.
Term Limits: One 6 yr term for the President (can't rerun ever). And two 6 yr terms for both members of the house and senate (they can never rerun and NO life time salaryies or medical for members of house and senate.
Do away with the electorial college, deligates and part conventions. Only the popular vote should count.
Political contributions should only be limited to tax payers contributions only. No corporations or any other business or means. . Each tax payer should pay $5.00 on there annula returns ($10 if joint). Its all deposited into one "pot" and dviided equally across all potitical parties and those parties divide it up across those respective candiates. No other source of contribution should be permited.
Contrary to popular wisdom, the normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes – 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Several people have recommended term limits. If you'd like to see how they work, come to California where we've had term limits for years. Term limits aren't the only reason the California government is completely incapable of governing, but they are part of the problem. There's no core of experienced legislators and our legislators are constantly looking to see where they can go next. The best term limits would be elections if our process wasn't so flawed. We need a constitutional amendment that mandates pubic funding of campaigns; it should ensure that the funding is adequate and identify the factors to consider when determining the amount of funding (costs differ greatly from district to district). It should also shorten the campaign season by mandating that primaries be held no earlier than 3 months before an election (or some other reasonable limit) so our elected officials and the public can concentrate on actual governing.
Constitutional amendment #2 must be elimination of the electoral college. Being a republic instead of a democracy does not require suppression of the popular vote in electing representatives. We've been lucky so far. A presidential candidate who loses the popular vote by a large amount but wins the electoral college would not be seen as legitimate.
I've got two choices for amendment #3. Choice #1 is to define a person as a person and not a corporation or any other type of collective; this could get bogged down in arguments over when life begins. Choice #2 is to apportion senate seats based somewhat on population. All states would have at least 1 senator and could have up to 4. The Senate would still be fairly small and states with lower populations would still have, collectively, a disproportionate voice to protect them fro tyranny of the majority.
Given the USA is a Republic and not a Democracy, my presidential campaign in the Iowa Democratic Primary is focused on implementing Article V of the Constitution in order to bypass the Congress and lobbyists in order to pass a Democracy amendment that will eliminate the power of lobbyists by empowering the majority of citizens to approve all Executive Orders, Congressional legislation or judicial decisions that impact the majority of citizens. Once the majority is in control, a Fair Accounting Act amendment can then be passed that will require that the National Academy of Sciences establish values that will factor in the environmental and health care costs of using toxic chemical and radiological poisons into the costs of such products. With such a fair accounting system, trillions of dollars of investments will rapidly shift from toxic fossil and nuclear fuels to a "Solar Hydrogen Economy", whereby hydrogen is made from water with electricity generated from the wind and other solar energy resources and technologies that have been in use for over 200 years, which means no R&D is necessary. As such, the 5 million 2 MW wind-powered hydrogen production systems and 250 million engine and power plant conversion systems that would be needed to displace all fossil and nuclear fuels could be mass-produced in less than 24 months once the tooling is in place, and given that over $1 trillion is now spent annually for fossil fuels in the USA, that means over $1 trillion annually could instead go to the U.S. Treasury and the American people who can then determine how this renewable return on investment should be allocated. It is worth noting that the National Academy of Sciences has testified that humanity is now passing the tipping point of no return of making the Earth uninhabitable due to our mindless and unnecessary lobbyists-driven addiction to fossil fuels and that all photosynthetic microbes and plants on the Earth are solar hydrogen machines that have been successfully extracting renewable hydrogen from water with sunlight for over 3 billion years.
How I would change the Constitution:
1) Repeal the 17th Admendment – the Senate was designed to represent the individual states. The senators should be appointed by their state.
2) Repael the 16th Admendment – the direct taxation of individuals income is regressive. I believe that a national sales tax of NEW goods and services will eliminate the need of direct taxation of income.
3) All of the legislative branch is elected ( or appointed – if you repeal the 17th amendment) by the people of their districts in their states. Therefore the salary of the congressmen and senators and their staff should be paid for by the states. As well as the rent of the congressional office(s). The salary should be set by the state for the period of the tern and all congressman's salary and benefits of that state should be higher than another congressman of the same state.
Fareed
I think revisiting the Constitution would be an excellent idea. My three suggestions would be:
! Rewrite the first amendment to make clear that only "natural persons" have free speech rights, not man-made
entities like corporations. Also, make clear that money is not a form of speech. After all, rich people shouldn't
get to talk more than poor people
2, Modify the second amendment so that it is no longer expressed in the absolute terms of its present
construction, thus allowing Congress to pass laws regulating gun possession and use.
3. At least attempt to restructure the Constitution to take some–if not all–of the money out of our political
process. This would be the hardest modification to make, because it runs head-on into free speech
rights and because there will be a thousand ways to finesse this stricture. Write an amendment expressing
in broad terms the goal intended and give Congress power to pass legislation enforcing it.
3.
My three proposals:
1) Whereas the current Electoral College is an anachronistic and ultimately anti-democratic vestige of 18th century political circumstances: Amend the constitution to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a National Public Vote for election of the President and Vice President.
2) Whereas the current practice of voting on Tuesdays is an anachronistic and profoundly inconveniencing vestige of 18th century social circumstances: Amend the Constitution to mandate that voting for election of national officials will be held on Sundays.
3) Whereas the effective public responsiveness of the legislature has been degraded by the undue influence of well-funded lobbyists, the toxic consequence of base-baiting party primaries, the paralyzing polarization of political partisanship, the ossification allowed by gerrymandering, and the well over two hundred-fold growth in the size of constituent populations, and Whereas modern technology can be employed to facilitate new and superior methods for coalescing citizens' views in keeping with the principles and purposes of a democratic republic:
Amend the constitution to create a third, directly national (not geographically ordered) legislative body called the "Citizen Hall" which:
A) will be organized in the form of sub-venues corresponding to the committee structure of the House of Representatives, and;
B) will enable the People to transmit new Bills to the corresponding House Committees for timely approval or rejection by, and;
C) will ensure that Citizen Hall Bills approved by the partnered House Committees are transmitted to the full House and Senate for consideration in a timely manner.
the constitution is like the bible, vague and open to various interpretations.
more definitive language concerning separation of church and state. nationalization of natural resource industries...the land belongs to all of us...and the recognition that health care and education are rights of the community not commodities traded like stock or bonds.
1) Eliminate the electoral college. 2) Have campaign finance set in a general fund – no private contributions to individual participants. 3) Set ethical and contribution laws (yes laws, not just rules) for Supreme Court judges the same as federal judges – those who make the law are not above it.
For starters, if I could write a Constitutional Amendment I would make it so that all current legislation, acts, policies and procedures enacted into law would have a sunset clause for a period no greater than ten years from the date of enactment. A future Congress could, of course, re-enact any legislation about to expire after much public debate.
Also, no legislation, past or present, should have a life span greater than the life span of majority of the members of congress who passed it. In other words, when more than fifty percent of the members of the Congress that enacted some legislation are dead, a two year sunset clause would automatically start running on that particular piece of legislation, etc., and it would become null and void unless re-enacted by the current sitting Congress after much public debate.
I would also amend the Constitution making it necessary for each and every department and agency of the government publicly justify its continued existence at least once every five years.
I would also make it so the top five officials of the IRS must be elected in a general election with a single term of no greater than five years.
I would also make an amendment that all lobbyists and others acting in any equal or substantially similar capacity to influence and/or advise any member of Congress must be a constituent of that member of Congress and must be a resident of that Congressperson’s congressional district for no less than five years pror to lobbying for whomever.. No exceptions!
Further, lobbyists would be limited to a very small number of multiple interests they could represent to their congressperson.
I would amend the Constitution so that all members of Congress would be limited to two consecutive terms. They could be a candidate for the same office again, but only after being out of office for an equal number of terms served prior before being a candidate for that office again.
Further, no person would be allowed to be a candidate for any other office, other than the one currently being served in for a second term unless they have completed the term of the current elected office they hold.
Any elected office holder who would resign from office during their current term must wait a period of time equal to the full term of the office being resigned from before being eligible to be a candidate for any other elected office
I would amend the Constitution so that in addition to the residency and age requirements to be elected to Congress, that no person would be eligible to be a candidate or elected to Congress whose income and assets exceeded that of the average constituent of the Congressional district in which they are seeking office.
Community property and household income would be included in determining the total income and assets of a person seeking to be a candidate for a seat in Congress.
This regulation would be suspended if an elected member were seeking a second term if congressional pay and benefits exceeded the income and assets of the average constituent within the congressional district.
The hiding of income and assets including transference would be an impeachable offence, if elected, the penalty of which would be that the offender would not be eligible to hold any elected and/or public office for 13 years. They would also be prohibited from being a lobbyist or to act in a substantially similar manner for an equivalent period of time.
I would amend the Constitution so that no person who has been elected to Congress could be employed or serve as a lobbyist or in any other substantially similar other capacity for a term no less than 17 years after leaving their seat in Congress.
I would make it so no one would be eligible to be elected to a seat in Congess unless they have been a full time resident of the Congressional district in which they are seeking election for at least five years. One seeking a Senate seek would have to have been a full time resident of the State in which they are seeking election for at least seven years prior to being a candidate for that office.
I would amend the Constitution so that all legislation, Acts of Congress including all rules and regulations and such must be written in totality by the members of Congress. Neither such documents nor the text therein could be outsourced. All language must be the words of the members of Congress and their full time staff.
All legislation, Acts of Congress and such would be required to include clear and concise scope of purpose and intent for interpretation by the public and the courts.
Jeff Tautges
Three amendments, and they are all operational not abstract.
1. Congress: The national legislature of the United States shall be unicameral, Representatives to be apportioned by state. By population, each state shall a number of representatives commensurate with its census population. Each state shall additionally gain 3 more Representatives, the state Governor, and two members of said states own legislative body.
2. Elections: All elections to be run by the National Election commission, at all levels. The commission will be non-partisan professional civil servants. All documents and actions available for public scrutiny at all times. States to draw district boundary's by use of a non-partisan group with a community of interest approach. Primaries to be non-partisan open to all. The electoral college to remain in force.
3. The Presidency and Supreme Court are subordinate to Congress and may be dismissed at the pleasure of the Congress.
3.
One presidential term of 8 years; one congressional term of 6 years; and one senate term of 10 years
One 15 year term for supreme court judges;3 judges should retire every 4 years
all political donations should be prohibited. Elections should be publicly financed
i think if our founding fathers were debating the governance of our country today,they would have written the entire idea of representation out of the constitution. for the first time in the history of mankind, technology has given us a means by which we can "bypass the middleman" and vote on the issues ourselves, rendering representation useless, archaic and a tremendous waste of our resources. today's society is instantly connected, with access to more information than any generation previous. beginning from the ground up, we have today a safe and secure system by which we can accept the consequences, as well as reap the benefits of our own actions. i've spent years of research on this idea and am convinced it is doable. think of it as the constitution with a bar code. some may say the average american is not capable of such responsibility,but i say if you can balance a checkbook you are already far ahead of most of congress. change the constitution? i say streamline it.
The Constitution is just fine the way it is. The founders left us with ways to fine tune the document to keep it in step with the times. That is through the process of legislation and amendment. The problem is that the process has become too political and fails to address the more direct needs of the people. Since the Constitution is- unlike the constitutions of many other countries- brief and to the point the founders left us with key writings that were intended to address objections to the document during the ratification process and to serve as a guide to future generations. Chief among these is the 'Federalist Papers', followed by 'Elliot's Debates', and James Madison's personal notes. These documents should serve as the Catechism, Gospels, and Epistles of the America Patriot. With us asking the question and going to these key sources for the answer. Attempting to rewrite the document to bring it more in line with the rest of the world would be a disaster not only for our own freedom and liberty, but that shining beacon on the hill would be forever extinguished, placing that great work of the founders 222 years ago on the dust bin of history. Since in modern times the world has become more and more leftist and socialist (I feign to use the word liberal since it meant something quiet different in 1776 and 1789) I can only imagine what would come out of a constitutional convention today. Let me put my theory of the Constitution this way: . It was the intent of the framers to create a national government of limited capacity that would operate at the will of the people though the states in the senate assembled and their elected representatives in the house assembled. Our representatives in Congress should be in the business of expanding and affirming the rights of all the Citizens of this great country and not limiting and curtailing them in the name of special interests and the cause of national security. To this end here are a few of the Amendments that I would propose. Admittedly they tend to be somewhat lengthy, but when the true nature of our Government has become so hopelessly perverted that the founders would no longer recognize it. It becomes necessary to go to some extremes call it a revolution in words if you will.
1. Reaffirm the Second Amendment.
The Militia is composed of the body of the People and functions independent of the will and authority of the United States Government or other governmental bodies, or institutions, except for the provisions specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. No further laws shall be passed limiting or prohibiting the types of firearms available to the citizens of the United States as prescribed in the statutes and laws of the United States including administrative rules or laws as they stood on the 1st of January, 2011. Except as law prescribes a disability to the right to bear arms according to penal status or a condition of mind that would make one unfit to bear arms in service.
2. Repeal the Fourteenth Amendment
This will relieve much of the confusion that exists over whether the amendment itself changes the meaning of the Constitution and how it is applied or incorporated to the States that has fueled seemingly endless intellectual firestorms.
3. Replace the Fourteenth Amendment with an Amendment that defines Citizenship.
A person shall be a citizen of the United States who when attaining a majority of age as prescribed by law shall have been born in the United States, a territory of the United States, or while the parent(s) were on foreign service for the United States Government, acting in an official capacity for the same, on a military base or installation of the United States Government, or while traveling, or residing in a foreign land on a temporary basis to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of his or her birth. A person born to parents only one of which was a United States Citizen at the time of his or her birth may be affirmed as a citizen only if he or she can demonstrate a command of the English language and a thorough knowledge of the history and Constitution of the United States. In addition no United States citizen can hold allegiance or citizenship in a foreign land. No dual citizenship will be allowed!!!!.
4. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
Makes Senators answerable to their respective State governments as originally intended.
I could write a book on this subject but I'll close with this:
5. A limit on Judicial power
Make the Supreme Court and lower courts answerable to the people through a process of Congressional review to prevent judicial fiat, overreaching and legislation from the bench.
This country has always been a 2 party system. The question at the time of the framing of the Constitution was states vs. federal government rights and just how much power each one should get and the check and balance to prevent one from usurping the other. The second was population of the state "big" states vs "small" states hence the two houses of Congress with one providing representation based on population from the Virginia Plan and one wanting equal representation from the New Jersey Plan this resulted in the House being based on population and the Senate providing equal votes, this compromise was called the Connecticut Compromise.
Today this is still true it's just that these camps have gone into two parties. Do you want bigger government or smaller government; which government should have more power the state or the federal government. These are the only choices in the elections.
Generally conservatives go towards let the system work it out and perhaps some government involvement hence the definition of conservatism and liberals tend to seek a government solution or a start over from scratch approach hence the definition of liberalism. Just look at the debate over healthcare reform or the economy to see this in action.
The election is just about which one of these solutions to current issues you want hence the two party system.
1. Election and term-limit reform: The President, Sentators, and Representatives should be limited to one six year term with elections held every two years (i.e. Presidency 2012, Senate 2014 and House of Representatives 2016); Candidates should only be allowed to accept limited (ie. not exceeding $1000) individual contributions. Companies, unions etc. should not be allowed to donate, even to the parties' general fund. Eliminate the electoral college. One person – one vote.
2. Balanced budget amendment.
3. Revise the 14th Amendment. No dual citizenship and no automatic citizenship if mother is in the country illegally.
I would like to see complete band and all lobbyists influence in Washington DC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also somehow change the two party political domination so other party could participate.
Eliminate filibuster so simple majority would be enough to make decision.
thanks Paul Janis
Three items to address: 1) No law can be enacted that affects rank and file but exempts elected officials; 2) one man/woman, one vote. Do away with the electorial college; and, 3) no campaign contribution above the amount of $100 (individual and corporate). This law cannot be circumvented by PACs, dinners, or in any way of any kind.
I will defend the constitution with my life, unlike people like you. If you don't agree with this country and it's constitution then I would say you need to leave. You do not speak for me and the majority of the poeple of this great county that was built on Judeo-Christian principles. This country was created as a republic, not on socialistic theology that allways fails. Instead of making stories based on your opinion maybe you should read history like intelligent people do.
Judeo-Christian Principles?! Surely you must be kidding. Our founders were deists which in modern times have essentially become atheists. See below for proof:
Thomas Jefferson
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
Thomas Paine
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book, the Bible. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book, the Bible."
“The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion“
John Adams – President at the time
Treaty between the United States and Tripoli – 1797 (treaties only require 2/3 of the votes, but after the two page document was read aloud to the senate, including the statement above, the treaty was passed unanimously!)
The phrase "Under God" was not added until 1952, being suggest by Joseph McCarthy, a mere matter of months before his censure by the Senate.
1st of all we need to change the number of terms congressmen can serve. If the president can only serve 2 terms why not the same for the senators and representatives. The amendment to decide if minorities can vote should not be voted on every so many years, but made a law that all Americans can vote period. Thirdly, unlimited funds for campaigns is a joke so that mostly rich people or rich people behind a candidate can control all elections. And to Joe F, this is still America and we are all allowed our opinions and don't have to leave to disagree. We have forgotten how to disagree amiably in this country and that is a shame. The many people who died for this freedom would turn over in their graves to see this country today.
Oh yes, we need some revisions. My top 3 are: Re-do congress. Term limits would be one term for each congressmen and one term for each senator. Congress at large would elect leaders. No retirement benefits for serving and no perks. My second item would be to do away with the IRS...completely! All funds would be raised from Federal Sales taxes (with no exemptions) on everyone and every business. Third, I would completely re-do our election process. This includes campaign fund raising and also include the dumping of the Electoral College. One vote equals one vote.
The constitution is out of date. Presidential elections should be by direct vote. Nether state line nor the electoral collage are appropriate at this time. Running for federal election should be limited to six weeks, and should be funded by the federal government. State lines are no longer appropriate for federal districts. Both state and federal election districts should be apportioned by an independent nonpartisan elected statisticians which will come as close to one man one vote as possible. Corporations should not seen as individuals and given the right of free speech in elections. They have plenty of opportunity to speak in commerical advertising. NO corporate campaigning, gifts, plane rides or other influence peddling.
All contact between elected officials, their families, or their staffs should scheduled ahead of time and filmed for presentation on CSPAN and lookup on the internet.
Campaign media time should be a free obligation of the media using the public airways and all campaign speeches should be available for look up on the internet with fact checking available on the site.
Members of congress should be paid a wage equal to other CEO's, and they should be required to be in Washington and voting. Trips should be limited to those needed due to committee posts. Trips home should be limited to scheduled vacations. Members of congress should not be out fund raising they should be paid a sufficient amount to deal with the needs of the office.
Pensions should be available to those who have served more than 10 years and should be based on the years of service.
A Supreme Court Justice should stand for an approval vote by the people every other presidential election. Their pensions should depend upon the years on the Court.
A federal constitutional amendment is not the normal way of changing the method of electing the President. Changing state law is. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes – 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Here is what I think needs to be changed:
1) Term limits and setting a definate # of years a judge may sit on the supreme court
2) Fed employees and all elected officials to pay into SS just like everyone else with retirment based on ave American
3) Outlaw corporate financing/Pac/Unions from donating to elections. Corportations and other large well funded groups are not people they are causes.
CORRECTION: I meant all contact between lobibyists, members of the federal government, their staffs, or their families, should have posted schedules and be filmed for broadcast on CSPAN and look up on the internet.
It is disappointing to see how many people freely indulge in the current sophomoric and fearful platitudes of Left and Right, mistakenly consider themselves scholars and pontificate. This nation neither exists for your sovereign profit nor is a venue for your harebrained schemes. The pathetic drivel of Left and Right is a shameful embarrassment, You both drip with F-e-a-r of your nightmares and ignore the real world right in front of you. . It is inappropriate, ludicrous, and destructive to clear and wise thinking. Neither party's current talking points reflect anything the founders envisioned. But brilliant as they were, they are dead and gone. It is no tribute to the founders to turn their work into an idol of worship. The world has gotten smaller, we have opportunities and difficulties they could not imagine. It is time for us to roll up our sleeves, assume responsibility for our lives and fortunes, and if we love this nation and want it to succeed give it institutions that work.
Fareed,
I suggest these three amendments, and please read all three even though the first may suggest to you that I am a Luddite.
1. Go back to 13 geographical states by requiring existing states to merge with others regardless of their physical geography. Nevada and Utah, while neighbors, may each chose to merge with distant states more in line with the beliefs of the residents of those states. This will make state governments more efficient and with only 26 senators, the Senate will be more efficient as well.
2. Establish 13 “virtual” states, temporarily called states A through M. Residents may change their “virtual” state on a 12 year cycle- each calendar year, citizens celebrating a birthday in a specific month will be able to change their virtual residency. Virtual states will have proportional representation with each state having at least two representatives and there being a maximum of 130 representatives.
3. All changes to existing laws, repeal of existing laws, or new laws require a 2/3 majority.
The following are rough drafts of three constitutional amendments that I consider important. The exact wording should of course be left to those best qualified to translate the spirit of what is here into workable constitutional amendments.
Proposals:
The first of my proposed amendments would place three restrictions on congress. Congress must vote on “advice and consent” issues in a timely fashion (90 days).
Any bill and/or amendments to that bill must be germane to a single issue.
And the vote to end a filibuster must be at the same level as the vote to pass that bill.
The second amendment I would propose would allow congress to pass laws
setting nationwide minimum standards (even in cases of non-interstate
issues where there is a corresponding interstate issue).
The third amendment would allow free speech rights to apply only to individuals and not artificial entities
Commentary:
The first proposal would allow for a more efficient and transparent legislature and eliminate much of the back door dealings in congress. An appointment could not be secretly held indefinitely, health care issues could not be attached to a weapons appropriation bill, and all bills presented would be required to come to a vote.
The second proposal would extend congress' power in such areas as minimum wage, election laws, and marriage rights.
The last of the three proposals would bring our system closer to be a government by the people instead of by the corporations and special interest groups.
Hal Kellerman
http://www.blogbyhal.com
1: A constitutional amendment which specifies that money does not equate to speech.
2: An amendment requiring the alternative voting system be used in all elections.
3. An amendment which increases the ratio of voters to representatives by creating national issue representation in Congress through at-large representatives and/or senators.
I was personally shocked by what this man had to say about just throwing away the U.S. Constitution. Effectively, we already have. We began throwing it away during the Wilson administration 100 years ago. We accelerated the pace of what I'll call Constitutional nullification about 50 years ago. In the 60's and really in the 70's. And since the Nasdaq bubble crashed (which was caused by the fact that the U.S. implemented a monetary policy based on centralized economic planning that the Founders warned us about) and 9/11, we've thrown it out. Well, now we're in a huge mess and this guy wants to blame it on the Constitution. If hadn't already effectively thrown it out we would have avoided the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, most likely would have never entered WWI and all of the unconstitutional wars we fought since WWII would have been out. We would never have these crazy bubbles and business cycles if we followed the constitution. We would still be a country that produces and export. It would be impossible for us to sustain an unbalanced budget if we had fidelity to the Constitution. We've already thrown out the Constitution for all practical purposes. This guy demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of American history. Does he know why each state has two Senators? The purpose of the Constitution was to restrain the power of the Federal government. Now, we have the federal government regulating everything from the type of toilets we can use, marriage... none of these powers are granted in the Constitution, thus they are denied. We don't want a strong central government to spy on our banking records, our gun records, our private conversations for whatever reason they want. But that's what we have now as we have slowly nullified the Constitution. Also, the U.S. is a Republic, NOT a democracy. A democracy can be just as tyrannical as any dictator. JFK was careful never to refer to the U.S. as a democracy. The word "democracy" is used in none of our founding documents. The founders warned about the dangers of a democracy. Where the minority can be persecuted by the majority. And the Articles of Confederation were written in a rush with an understanding at the time they were written that they would be replaced by a Constitution. This man does not have a grasp of American history or the meaning of the word "liberty" as he is clearly an enemy to what liberty remains.
I have had time to only peruse the many worthy comments from your viewers, as I am en route to a family emergency, so I suspect I am repeating what so many people seem to be saying when I say, Yes, it is time to make some changes. I believe that in doing so, we are not jeopardizing the basis or purpose of the Constitution; we are merely "tweaking" it to reflect the reality of today. All of those things you mentioned in your broadcast are subject to consideration for change, and I believe that such consideration would not be harmful to the United States or its citizens.
See my comments in the discussion about "Conservatism has lost its touch – they apply here as well. In short, I provide precise amendment language that would restructure the way Federal elections are funded and greatly reduce, if not eliminate, excessive corporate and special interest influence on our governemt and politics.
Fareed
I am not convinced we need drastic changes to the Constitution, but I do believe we need a simple change. I think that much of the dysfunction of government can be removed by term limits, and ideally, representatives in our Republic that are truly representative of the people, not an economic class. Professional politicians cannot act in the interest of the country or sometimes even their constituency. While not perfect, I believe this would improve the functioning of our government.
As others have said, amending the constitution should not be taken lightly, nor be done for transient causes. With that in mind, and having reviewed the suggestions of others, these are the amendments I think would be most beneficial to the United States at present and in the future.
1) Set term limits for all federal government officials: a maximum of fifteen years for senators (an extra three to allow for emergency appointments), a maximum of thirteen years for representatives (again, an extra year for allowances), and a maximum of ten years for justices. Terms served need not be consecutive. No candidate shall be eligible to run for an incomplete term.
2) Limit the period to conduct a federal election campaign to a maximum of 120 days prior to election day; campaign finances may not be collected more than five days prior to the campaign period. State and local governments may issue similar period limits for themselves if they so desire, with or without financing restrictions as they deem necessary.
3) Establish election day as a federal holiday.
-–
Another proposition made here which I found interesting enough for an honorable mention was the idea for the allocation of a 'war tax' through Congress. I think fundamentally this is not such a bad idea.
Obviously no one likes to pay taxes; but war is expensive, and as we've seen in recent years it can lead to economic disaster if not given proper financial support in duration. As its proponent pointed out, such an amendment could prove an effective deterrent to declaring war unnecessarily, as any legislator who approved such a tax would in so doing be putting their re-election on the line.
Of course, provisions would have to be made so the tax increase was not unreasonable, and for termination of the tax to be mandatory upon the war's end. This only begins to address the potential for abuse of such power, but personally I think the benefits – 'pay some now so you're not paying more later' – may outweigh the risks involved.
You are absolutely right. The Constitution definitely needs to be updated to the 21st century. There are many articles that are almost obsolute and ridiculous, i.e. Electoral Votes – US citizenship given to all those born in the US – Congress/Senate elections, etc.. However, I do not think this will happen since it serves well the corruption of both houses.
1. I would strengthen the requirement that religion do not interfere with the political process in toto, with NO exception. In that spirit I would eliminate the tax-free status of ALL religious organizations.
2. I would specifically state the right of all citizens to their body, including for example abortion and euthanasia.
3. I would prohibit the funding of elections by anybody and any organization, with NO exceptions. Instead I would assign public funds of equal size for any candidate for Congress and for the presidency. In the same vein no candidate will be allowed to spend his/her own money for political ends.
4. Our representatives are currently in a continuous election/reelection convulsion. I would set term limits (two elections), the same duration in office (six years) and the same election day every six years, for every public office. This way the country elects the total body of representatives for a sufficient and continuous period of time to accomplish the compact made with the PEOPLE at each election time, without convulsions and distractions.
In summary, these suggestions are not unique and are based on real, hard, and painful lessons learned from our current political process. There are more (just as an example, the propensity to police the world and to get the country into wars of choice) and surely they will be brought up in an open debate. Vox populi, if allowed to be expressed on a broad front and without fear, will ultimately do the right thing for the country.
The Constitutuion is O.K. but needs an ammendment to correct THE fundamental problem with the proper functioning of our system, and that is:
Amendment XX: All elections will be publicly funded through the federal or state government, as appropriate, and each candidate running in a specific race shall be apportioned an equal amount of campaign funding, as determined by the body overseeing the conduct of the election.
Amendment XY: The Presdidential election period shall begin the 1st of March and continue until the election date which will be the first Tuesday in November of that year. All other election periods shall start the 1st of June and continue until the election dat ewhich will be the first Tuesday in November of that year. Special elections shall be scheduled and conducted by the proper authority and shall not exceed a four month period from start to the election date.
This would be paid for by an election tax levied upon all sectors of the economy and protected for election use only as directed by the amendments.
If we do not take the money out of politics, the representative process is doomed and so goes the concept and the country.
Am
Agreed, 100%.
Although I also think that the definitions of individual, person, and citiizen need to be clearly delineated as Human. Corporations are NOT in any way shape or form 'individuals' and should not be treated as such under the law.
And now, for the rest of the story...
http://www.thedailybell.com/2518/Time-Magazine-Attacks-Ron-Paul-Conservatives
The primary change that needs to be made concerns political financing and campaigns. Political campaigns should be funded solely and exclusively by public funds, which additionally would be off-limits to corporations or non-human entities of any kind. Until this change is effected there exists no democracy.
The government needs to have a dominate NATIONAL assembly where members are elected in nationwide elections.
Elective representatives would continue to be selected on the narrow special interest ranges as they are now.
But their quibbling and jockeying to pass laws to blunder the treasury for their own gain would not hold sway
over the goals set by the national assembly. Countries that are prospering and improving the quality of life
of their populace set specific national goals for economic concentration of resources which allows them to
develop infrastructure and technical superiority. For example Tehran has built a subway system for the public's
benefit. China is moving capital strongly into alternative energy research and development. What are we doing?
An amendment(s) to create a national assembly is needed to improve our system so we can prosper and
eliminate the gridlock of a two-party system driven solely for the benefit of special interests.
As a full on independent there seem to be several restructurings that could be highly beneficial. The first has been seen since the very beginning with our first president: Discontinue political parties. Impossible as it may seem, it could be regulated from a pragmatic standpoint: No entity can donate money to the campaigns of any political candidate in excess of $10,000. That would heavily restrict the RNC's and DNC's ability to directly support its candidates unless it can find numerous other entities to step in. Those other entities that would possibly step in may have similar interests but would not be under their direct control. We place limits on what individuals can give to political candidates, we are fools to think that the RNC or DNC are not simply the equivalent of massive special interest groups. Even worse, whereas a teacher's union or automakers union has specific objectives that would serve their special interests which at the very least have a right to be heard and weighed, the obvious foundational goal of the RNC and DNC is simply to remain in power. This is not an interest, it is power-hunger.
Secondly, the right to vote should be limited to those who have at least a working knowledge of American democracy. It has been that the greatest enemies of democracy are apathy and ignorance. I would suggest a free test administered every January and February prior to the full on beginning of the election season each year that would test a would-be voters most basic knowledge. It should not be anything difficult enough to be charged with elitism, but simply something we can confidently say that someone at least has an idea of how the political system they are about to participate in operates. An obvious choice is something akin to the US Citizenship Test, though slighlty beefed up. If we require that of those immigrants who seek citizenship, then this information is clearly already seen as important for a citizen to possess in order to become part of our national citizenry. The charge of elitism is completely unfounded in modern times in the United States with this test because every ounce and way more of the material in that test is taught again and again in the compulsory education which every American must go through before they even reach 16 (when they could drop out with parental consent). With the information being presented many times to all Americans during their school-aged years, only apathy could possibly cause a person to not achieve a passing score. Apathy, it one of the two things any democracy (or republic) simply cannot stand and survive. After someone has passed these tests for say consecutive years, you could give them a permanent "voting license." We require it of people who drive cars but not of those who would like to contribute to the driving of our country. Granted, this system can only work in a place in which all the information for the test is presented to all students in a compulsory manner prior to the time they can voluntarily leave school, it would be an elitist practice in third-world countries where education of any kind is reserved for the elite. But at this point, every part of the American citizenship and much more is required to be taught to all those in the american public school system (and would certainly be part of private school and home school curriculum) for decades now. If we cannot come to expect a basic level of intelligence for our populous then we would seriously need to even reconsider the value of a public education. For those people who don't even know what the electoral college is, the duties of the speaker of the house, the purpose of the fifth amendment, they were told many times in their required schooling; if they don't care enough to know or even review it and sign-up for simple and almost free test (it could be say, $2 to cover materials costs but free to all those who could present evidence of making less than $20,000/yr.) then the fact that these people can vote now should be extremely alarming and presents a major weakness to the strength of our republic. The threat between the ignorance of some voters and the practices of the two main political parties to do little more than stay in power are hard to discern as which is really our greater threat.
1. Add an amendment requiring a mandatory motion every 8 years (two presidential terms) for the congress to vote whether the constitution should be amended. This will provide for an opportunity for our country to determine whether any issues are important enough to be included in the constitution. The constitutional values should be preserved as time goes on, but also reflect our changing society.
2. Change our governmental system to a direct democracy- eliminating the representative factor of the electoral college. One person should equal to one vote.
3. Make lobbying unconstitutional. This goes in line of protecting the weight of every citizens' vote; one person should equal to one vote, reducing the influence of money and power.
Actually, the normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes – 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The constitution should state clearly that while citizens have the right to worship as they wish, religious beliefs have no place in government. All aspects of government should be secular.
If there was ever a time that the Constitution should NOT be tempered with, this is it!
As the "red/blue" division is becoming stronger by the day with every action the governing administration and branches take, incited by a overtly biased media, this would be a terrible idea that would further divide the country.
The Constitution has and should remain as the stabilizing force that keeps us on track when passions seem to be growing strongest in opposite directions.
Necessary changes to the Constitution should only be considered in times of calm and thoughtful participation by the society living under it and not at a time of such uncertainty and derisiveness, or when a conflict has been resolved and the outcome is totally predictable.
Constitutional Change:
The US Constitution is not an exceptional document. It was a compromise and out of date within 25 years. All constitutions must evolve, but the declared purpose of the mechanism of ours is to thwart change. ‘Original intent’ has no basis in logic. Most improvements already exist in leading, more mature, industrialized nations and we should simply copy them.
Three much needed changes are:
1. Switch to a parliamentary system in which the President or PM and is chosen on the basis of ability and experience by colleagues in the elected majority party. For Obama to spend $1 billion on reelection is obscene, and to begin campaigning 2 years in advance rather than running the country is ludicrous. Fifty-one percent of Senate members should be appointed based on their business, academic, or social support knowledge.
2. Severely restrict federalism. Move to national standards and laws and avoid being the dis-United States of America. Merge states into administrative 6-7 regions.
3. Improve individual human rights. Ensure that the ancient concept of autonomy and freedom of individual choice are central to our federal laws. Adopt regulations already adopted in the 20th century in OECD nations for 21st century America:
a. Universal health care
b. Allow abortion funding (gestational age 16-20 weeks)
c. Discontinue the death penalty
d. Allow same sex marriage
e. Enforce strict gun control
Yes, I agree on all.
This country desperately needs an amendment eliminating corporate personhood.
CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!
(1) Clarify a person's right (or lack thereof) to use drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Decide one way or the other. Arbitrarily designating some drugs as ok but others as not has led to a monstrously expensive and failed war on drugs that has accomplished absolutely nothing positive. If I have the right to take a legally prescribed (but impairing) opiod pain killer, or binge drink enough to make my liver cringe, don't tell me that I can't smoke pot. Either people have the right to get high/drunk/impaired, or they do not. Make a decision and be consistent.
(2) Simplify the tax code. I'm not an accountant or an economist, but the fact that a person can actually have a college degree studying almost nothing but our tax code should indicate that things have really become absurd. Get rid of all the deductions, credits, subsidies, etc. If you want to raise taxes, raise them (on everyone, not just the rich). If you want to lower taxes, lower them (but not through subsidies specific to industries). The amendment should literally state that people who are not attorneys should be able to understand the tax code.
(3) Mandate secular justification for any and all laws. I am an agnostic independent, and the Bible has no bearing on my personal decisions. Except for the laws in my community that have religious morals hidden in them, like not being able to purchase alcohol on Sundays (I mean, really??)
If you are on the dole you get no vote or take it one step further, only tax payers vote.
"No existing section or amendment shall be interpreted in such manner as to be in violation of another section or amendment. No additional amendment shall be in violation of another section or amendment."
As it now stands, a supermajority could vote to repeal the Bill of Rights, unless it was made illegal to do so.
End the right to bear guns.
No need to "update" the Constitution which has held up so well and supported the growth and vitality of the greatest of all nations on the earth. This foundational document for our government need NOT be abolished nor radically updated. Amend if you wish, but we must keep this amazing document–it is our national treasure. The US is still the envy of the world and we must give credit to the Constitution, our inspired Founding Fathers, and to Democracy and capitalism for providing us with the freedom and correct principles by which we can govern ourselves and pursue excellence in our lives.
And Supreme Court Judges should be appointed by us, by vote. Forget electoral vote and enforce gun laws. and to hell with the NRA!
Of the Rich, For the Rich, By the Rich.
You should educate yourself as the true realities instead of listening to, and regurgitating false sound bites.
Presidential Succession: there's simply no justification for the Cabinet to be part of the Presidential Succession, particularly in the order that it currently stands, with exception to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The order of succession, once down to the Cabinet level is determined by the date that Cabinet seat was created, which obviously has no bearing on qualifications to be President. Not to mention that there are several Constituionality arguments that members of Congress are not permitted to be President, along with other logistical problems evolving with bumping, elgibility, and so forth.
I think the whole thing just needs to be revised.
You can't trust today's political environment to update such an important document. Special interests would have a field day trying to force their agendas. I can just see it now... "We the Corporations of America..."
A balanced budget amendment is needed. As good as our forefathers were they could not have imagined the financial complexities that exist today. Asking our politicians (essentially a group of lawyers) to be fiscally responsible is naive.
Change the constitution?! Dear god, that is a horrible idea. Would we really put one of america's most trusted and loved documents to the editing table by a bunch of corrupt corporate controlled puppets?! They would DESTROY IT! (not that it hasn't already been shit on already, but at least it wasn't changed!) The complete lack of common sense you people have astounds me, even considering to let these pigs in government touch the constitution is revolting. Our politicians don't give a shit about any of us, not me, not you, why don't you see that? Why don't you understand that all the problems we are in now is because of their complete lack of dedication to the american people? They are playing you all for fools, and your acting like it. Grow up, forget left or right politics, forget democrat or republican, its all the same thing, and in this day and age, only fools still believe that it matters.
This would be the worst time to change the Constitution. Original amendments were to turn the US from a slave dictatorship to a free country. Those who want to change the Constitution now want to turn the hands of time and introduce changes solely based on racism.
We could clear up the debate over campaign finance reform and introduce "One Dollar...One Vote."
Also could clarify that "While all men are created equal...corporations are more equal than people."
This has got to be the most imbecilic suggestion I have read on this site in a while...and there have been many. The US Constituion works, and works very well, because it is simple and addresses legal concepts, not particular acts. Some of the wackiest part of the Constituion arise from later amendments when well intentioned folks tried to show just how smart they where. If you think things are bad now try putting together a constitution is this modern world of politically correct statements and every-point-of-view is100% correct. Frankly I don't care about Iceland's constitution and about their parliament. To say that the world's oldest and best run constitutional democracy should follow the lead of Iceland and "take to the web" is incomprehensible
guys like zakaria scare me. He's a muslim so of course he'd want us to change our constitution. let me guess, shria law would be better.
in zarkaria's own words, our constitution was brilliantly written and has been in place for 222 years... so lnow he wants us to change it? how stupid is this guy? let's let popular culture write our constitution? the constitution create the free market system and made us the most admired nation on the planet – and now he wants to change it. why don't we do something MORE intelligent... why don't we teach it to our society and recognize just how brilliantly written it truly is? Screw guys like zakaria. he's an idiot. Let's defend it! Not change it?
Well, I'm gonna jump in with a more comprehensive answer hopefully within a few days, but for now, maybe just one simple suggestion: Since the main argument from our founding fathers for the creation of this nation was to oppose taxation without representation, then how about an ammendment that would, through extended legal jurisprudence, ensure that over extended national debts may never exceed the epected allocated tax debt of the individual?
No not now, not with the economy and the political system as unstable as it is now. Maybe in the future soon as the economic situation settles but revising the constitution now would open up a new can of worms, not only that but there's not a single politician who would have the balls to even suggest such a thing (you'd sooner see a consensus on solving the social security problem than one on whether the constitution needs to be revised or not).
3. things: 1.outlaw government borrowing; 2. outlaw fractional reserve lending; 3. no 1st amendment rights for corporations.
Absolutely NOT! The US is in such a precarious place right now in virtually every aspect of life that giving a bought-and-paid-for power structure the power to rewrite such a marvelous document will even more rapidly bring about the demise of this nation than it's already enduring. To suggest that the people in office now are even slightly capable of addressing such weighty issues as this would be supreme folly.
Amend, Amend, Amend, The originators of the constitution were a bunch of slave owning, millionaires for the most part and would not even let their wives attend the church of their choice, nor would they allow them to vote or cut their hair. Does this sound like folks that were honest and sincere about this country or were they just a bunch of self serving old farts that were hypocrites like Thomas Jefferson, and the other signees of the document? They spouted all about liberty and justice while working the tail off of their slaves and playing hanky panky with their females.
Go back to Mother Russia, ya' pinko!
Constitutional Amendments?
Any suggestion of amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America should be expressed as a counter-measure to the demonstrated desire of most of those who have served in the elected offices of the government to define the issues which they wish to address to an unsuspecting and divided public. Whatever it is that we would like to change within the constitution of our nation, it is also necessary that we abandon our assigned role as the unsuspecting and divided public. To achieve the necessary and desired effect, politicians need to receive a clear instruction from a suspicious and united public.
Consider that politicians, generally, do not believe that the public has the resolve to unify and demand a reasonable solution to the challenges the nation must face. The comments written here provide evidence that this is fact. In this time of widespread economic abuse and hardship, hardly any mention has been made of proposing an amendment to the constitution which would define an effective national banking system. This is in the context of the discussion of financial reforms enthusiastically opposed by the banking industry. If we have lived through and suffered from the economic meltdown created by the undisciplined greed of those entrusted with the management of the national treasure, and, have not learned a thing about what went wrong and how to fix it . . . maybe we deserve what we get. You can be sure that is what bankers and their politicians believe about us. We the people.
The first recommended amendment would establish well-designed and sustainable banking and economic systems not based of continuous growth projections. (The resources of the planet are limited, it is not in the public interest to rapidly deplete them.) Rather than defining massive regulatory mechanisms, this amendment should be based on mandatory outcome requirements. For example; the issue of consumer credit. A simple mandate that interest rates can never exceed an aggregate charge of 10% annually. The statement (invoice) from the bank which specifies an excessive rate would constitute evidence to be used in a highly accelerated and streamlined judicial process which insures that the responsible banker goes directly to jail. That is; the banker would be held responsible for documenting the offense. Banks seeking funds to lend at competitive rates below 10% should be compelled to pay the general public a reasonable return on savings and investments rather than getting the money (for nothing) from the federal (public) treasury. The U.S. Treasury is NOT the property nor the exclusive domain of the banks. No plan to privatize Social Security or other federal programs makes any sense at all unless these measures were to be undertaken first. All scams and deceptions are unlawful. Nobody gets to cheat.
The second recommended amendment should re-state and clarify the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America and specify the requirements of citizenship and lawful entry into the U.S. Illegal aliens and their children have no authority, rights, privileges or entitlements within the borders of the U.S. Period. Admissions quotas should be linked to employment vacancies. Employment of U.S. citizens established as a priority. Assimilation into English-speaking culture a requirement of citizenship. Dual-citizenship prohibited under the law. Employment is the result of balance between population and healthy economic conditions. Excess greed and disproportionate charitable requirements cannot be sustained.
The third amendment should establish the method whereby citizens may petition (not purchase) the government. All "lobbying" is prohibited, including that of religious organizations, except by authorized fully-visible lawful procedure such as referendum. Every vote counted as one. Lawyers and legislators should be subject to same laws as general population. Prohibition against obstructive practices by lawmakers (temporary public employees). Legislative proposals available to all for preview and comment. Citizen statesman model for all elected officials. "Volunteers" not entitled to career benefits. Lawyers should be required to clarify and modernize language and improve access to legal protections under the law. Corporations, groups, not human not accorded rights of citizenship under the law.
Hey, Bruce, how about an amendment to limit the posts of windbags who take forever to get to a point they really do not have?
I think it is a good idea, however I don't think we should revise the whole constitution. Overall, it would be a good idea to update it because different time periods bring different challenges. I agree with you.
How about our American government , reading it, instilling it, and promoting it. As of now it's not even being taught in American schools or practiced. If we all lived by what our Constitution stands for we would all be better off.
In all honesty, why change something that, for the most part, s being ignored. The Federal government is able to pass all kinds of unconstitutional acts and the executive branch is able to abuse its power at will, especially war powers. The Supreme court is free to cherry pick which of the few cases it wishes to tackle each year, ignoring most cases that affect how the other two branches behave.
With a quiescent populace willing to allow its freedom to be limited; why bother?
The first order of business should be to modernize and sanitize the political process itself. Until the poisoning effect of money is purged from the system, we will not be able to make substantial progress on the multitude of problems we face. That means campaign finance reform. It has been suggested that a 100% fee should be levied on political contributions, for instance. This money could be used to provide public financing for other candidates, greatly diminishing the influence of contributions. The goal should be to even the playing field, not distort it so that candidates are bought and sold by wealthy interests. We've seen the damage done by the latter arrangement. Do we believe in democracy or plutocracy?
Yes it should be,making same sex marriages sinfull and Gays should be banned under law as it is against the Holy book and all the teachings the Lord stood for. Gays and this same sex marriages will bring to end the Great nation of UAS down just the nation of Lot was bought down because of the Unnatural behaviour of Human Beings.
All the warning signs are there in the book for the people of the Future to stay away from this evil, so pay heed and make the required changes.
Hi All,
I understand the doubts and issues that arise when a change is proposed. We tend to believe the mass is incapable of thinking or choosing what is best. Then... Why bother voting for a president? We will just elect the best looking and most commercial candidate.
We must continue the evolution as a country and cannot remain as we are forever.
We must understand where our money goes and what is done with it. …And should be able to have our say.
We must assume the results of our own errors and not expect someone smarter to work it out for us.
We must all become persons interested in our world and surroundings and the best way is to have a certain relevance in the decisions taken.
Voting a president once every 4 years is like just like electing a dictator for that period.
We must progress, though slowly and carefully (as we have usually done). Now we can vote on some laws that affect us (by state), why not expand this capacity slow.
We may not be prepared for such liberty as a society, but we must learn. Just as we learn to ride a bike it has to come trying, not by throwing the towel and giving it all up.
Just like Obama said: Yes we can!
It is true, it is the spirit we should have, but we all must participate. The president alone cannot be the inflexion point here.
It doesn't matter how you want to call it: democracy or republic. It is the goal: "Power to the People"!
Kindest Regards for All
What we need Johnny, is for the majority of the power to go back to the states in determining what is best for each state. This does not mean going back to Jim Crow laws as some Chicken Little types warn. No, we have evolved as a people well beyond that. And at the same time, giving states their power back doesn't mean allowing them to trample on basic human rights.
The problem with a centralized power is that we are not and will never be one homogenous society. What people in California want is not necessarily what people in New York want. See? So what you wan ti s for s local government that is in touch with the local citizenry and is responsive to their needs...and wants. This is the only way that the majority of the people can be happy and feel that their government is reflective of what the people themselves want.
And this also provides with you as a citizen with options. If every last state has the same laws, where do you go when you don't like the laws? If you have many states with somewhat different laws, you can move, if necessary, and find someplace that you feel fits what you want and are looking for.
See, a centralized government sounds great, when you imagine it having laws that you yourself want. But what if they declared a national religion and made you participate? Oh sure, you don't think that could happen. And it might not...not now...maybe not ever...but it could. And with a democracy it is even easier. With the present Republic, it can't. But the point is, it doesn't have to be just that issue. There are many issues that could come up, simple things that restrict your freedom for instance. If the sates have most of the power and have different laws, you can move when one has laws that you can no longer tolerate and there's a good bet, if the states are diverse enough in their laws, that you will be able to find one that you feel comfortable living in.
The Constitution has worked and kept us in line for the last 200 years. One can only imagine the "junk" amendments that would be proposed if a Constitutional Convention is opened up. Every far left or right supporter will come out and try to bend the Constitution their way.
How is this for a idea: keep the Constitution as it is and just enforce the laws that are now on the books? Most of the politicians bend the rules their way and most of the time it is against numerous laws that are already there. What a thought, campaign funds FULLY disclosed, PACS not only registered but also listed as to who they fund and what cause they push. With just a few enforcement changes there would be a lot of political trash cleaned up.
the Constitution is the only thing that stands between the people and a total take over by the ruling class so i wouldn't mess with it..the ONLY thing I would change is I would get rid of the electoral collage and make it so the president has to get 50% or more of the popular vote to win. that would open the first round to more candidates and eliminate the 3rd party spoiler
Amendments:
1. Require Congress to adhere to all laws they pass, set their salaries and benefits at the same level as SES4 (civilian equivalent of 4 star general) for Senators and SES3 (civilian equivalent of 3 star general) for Representatives, and require them to go without pay during a Government shutdown.
2. Clarify that corporations are not persons and have no inherent rights except those explicitly given to them by legislation. Also prohibit them from contributing to campaigns or giving gifts to politicians.
3. Require states to set congressional districts in a manner that will fairly represent the diversity of their populations, possibly allowing for at large districts that will guarantee some representation for particular minorities.
4. Give the District of Columbia senators and representatives as if they were a state and take away congressional control over DC local laws and budget except as directly concerns their contributions to the DC budget in support of hosting the federal government.
5. Do away with the second amendment.
6. Make gay marriage a constitutional right.
A constitutional convention is way past due.A change that would return political power to the people would be to limit corp. charters to a 10 year span and the renew the charter to fit the situation at hand.Limited liability,publicly traded corps. need to be placed under control.Not in control.
It is important to remember that the wealth of the United States was in its ability to out manufacture it's competitors. City's and towns grew up around manufacturing plants, and so it goes. Without manufacturing on a national scale, whats missing? Well, look at it this way, a plant off-shores, closes its doors, and fires its workers. No only did the plants workers loose their jobs, the restaurant who premared breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and late night coffee, fired their workers. The hardware who provided goods and serviced the plant closed and fired their workers. The lost suppliers to the hardware store, and the restaurant closed their doors, and fired their workers for loss of business. Gas stations closed because there was a drop in business, stores closed because of no-one around to purchase their goods also fired their workers. The city, or town faced with loses in tax revenue had to reduce their taxpayer payed staffs, and eliminate city jobs.
Now play that same scene across the nation. Not just the factory workers who lost their jobs, but the whole supporting infrastructure has closed for those industries. And by the way, The business paid city, state, federal, property, sales taxes. I guess you are asking where am I going with this, its simple. It isn't the president's job to give anyone a job. It is the job of the State, and local elected representatives to lobby the industries in their jurisdiction, who their constituents work for, those factory workers, instead of being lobbied by those same industries. I often wander how many congressional figures have investments in those same companies who have fired American Workers, to move off shore. We call them Share Holders..... Why pay an American Worker $25.00 an hour, when you can pay some Chinese worker 30 cents an hour.
Americas prowess was the result of Manufacturing, not services... You don't build roads unless you intend on shipping the goods that were built on the roads you constructed to move those goods. "Freight and Rail"
Play it backwards now, You open a closed plant, update it to today's standards.
You have to hire workers, who pay taxes
Those workers buys things, Food, Clothes, Toys and Gadgets, Cars, from other American Factory's who also has to hire people.
The restaurant closed reopens, hiring people who also pay taxes and buys things.
The city or town around the plant rebounds, and the businesses in the town provide goods and services to the plant. The city rehires fired employees who also pays taxes and buys things.
The transportation infrastructure damaged from neglect because of not having the money to repave and perform upkeep begins hiring people who also pays taxes, buys things and...
Get My Point..... Then the Banks Begin Lending again, the town grows again...
Americans are Happy Again.....
It was manufacturing who raised Americas Standard of Living, and caused all of these things we take for granted everyday. To those who blame the President, don't. Blame your city, state and federal elected representatives for not working for you, the American People. Let them lobby the American Industry to move back to the city's and towns abandoned for cheep labor overseas, rehire American Workers, and we will see an economy come back to life.
To the politicians, you can't legislate jobs, but you can legislate the companies allowed to move tax breaks, and impose fees for off-shoring greater than the salaries, labor, OSHA, and taxes they are and overhead they are running away-from.
Who is right in this argument, the politician who blames the President, or the fact that it is the politician was lobbied by industry, and the accumulative affect of Industry allowed to take tax breaks and offshore what once American Jobs. You Tell Me!
Great Idea! While you're at it, amend the bible too!
Mr. Zakaria the three amendments I would put in or revise:
1. Term limits for US Senators and US Representatives. I would limit them to two terms. I would also due away with the pension after 5 yrs. You serve at the honor of the citizens of your State who elected you. This way we will get people who truly want to serve and have the best interest of the Country and their State over the best interest their political party. No more career politicians.
2. I would add an amendment to eliminate corporate and interest group lobbyist as well as eliminate these groups donating to election campaigns or to political parties. The government is for the people by the people.
3. I would revise the sixth amendment and put in a right for a defendant to request trial by judge instead of jury of peers. I would also clarify right to a speedy trial and put in limits to the appeal process. I would want rules in place to curb our appetite for litigation.
Amendments to the exiting constitution will not fix the system. The original document was created with the idea that the representatives will be ordinary people who will give two years from their vocation in the service of their country. Today we have professional polititions who require large amounts of money to herd the voters to their way. The framers of the document could have never foreseen the techology and emergence of large powrful forces with cross purpose interests. The system was designed to be confrontational in order to balance the powers of the time.The constitution was a writen to assuage the nationalistic sentiment of the State lagislations of the time. The country today is very different with interstate migration of population and trade and services, States as such are no longer relevant.
We need a totally new system of Government where ideas are quickly implemeted before they get obsolete. A President can not get his administration fully staffed because his nominees get mired in idiotic wrangling between the parties. Any more amendemts will complecate the system further.
I personall prefer the Parliamentary system where majorities are real majorities and things get done unlike the present where majority is undermined. Unlike our system where we have to wait for elections to send undesireable representative or the President packing, a quick no-confidence vote in the Parliament sytem takes care of it.
While we are stuck in the idealogy quagmire, the rest of the world is moving at a breakneck speed to find solutions to their impending problems.
These are my ideas, I fear that Americans are not ready to give up the obsolete document. Instead they will add more amendments and produce something that rivals our tax code.
The U.S. Constitution provides an elegant design for the architecture of a state implementing, with a high degree of pragmatism, the essential principles of a sound and coherent ethic. Its significant flaws are those which are common to any system of government in that the people might ignore it* and also that, necessarily, all government is coercive and all coercion is immoral. Among its practical strengths, its capacity to be adjusted through the very amendment-process that it outlines allows for these flaws to be ameliorated.²
While there are some amendments that would help clarify and complete how the ethical vision got expressed, the structure – *AS PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD* – is generally correct (and a sincere reading already sufficiently extrapolates to topics not explicitly stated). The more important work would be accomplished by “highlighter” amendments which would run across the existing text and correct the all-too-often bizarre and sometimes just gratuitously wrong court-decisions that leave the semantics contorted, interpretations occasionally contradictory, and rife with outright fabrications.
The judiciary is accountable through the people amending the law (the republic requiring a greater than mere quorum for revising the status-quo on such weighty matters) but there’s a psychological hurdle to ratifying what would ostensibly be redundant w.r.t. the exiting text. For example, emphasizing that, to qualify as an act of “interstate commerce,” the conduct in question must occur across state-lines and must also be an act of commerce. This would seem so tautological that the electorate would feel silly expending resources on a political process to restate the obvious. Absent this, however, heinous falsehoods remain unchecked. Such a recitation of the definition-of-terms would seem unnecessary since words, as symbols, already convey their meaning – there are, persisting even into this era, native-speakers of English and we can even account for the historical evolution of language to compensate for the drift over the last couple centuries – but a weirdly illogical set of truth-consequences has emerged from the courts. Other truisms³ would include the observation that a “person” is such that a person cannot be composed of multiple people; no collection of people could constitute some encompassing, gestalt person. The contrary thesis remains a part of the legal canon but would be balanced by the people’s vote.
Wholly novel amendments would repeal some of the more recent amendments which are incoherent with the inspiring vision expressed in the earlier ones and in the articles, preamble, supplementary documents (Federalist Papers, Declaration on Independence, Rousseau, etc.), and straight-forward, game-theoretic reasoning on the paradigm as presented. The XVIth doesn’t make sense within the scope of the motivating ideology. The nature of a constitutional nation-state would no more maintain the Electoral College as a solution for investigating the people’s will than any other facet of representation. A plebiscite of instant, persistent public referenda on every aspect of every policy-matter at every moment is feasible; the arguments in favor of intermediaries, which was a deference to the technological limitations of a bygone time, to dampen paroxysms of collective whims are defective in that they do not proceed from any uncontroversial first-principles. Representative Democracy is an obsolete technology for implementing our Democratic Republic.
________________________________________
* whether willfully, hypocritically or through a convenient self-denial, or innocently but, nonetheless, erroneously through misinterpretation – a condition which might arise with any expression using natural language
² While there is a school-of-though that amending allows the document to be adapted to changing times or to extend it to topics it had not covered, this would actually undercut its far more cogent ethical foundation. Its precepts are correct through an enduring universality which would be relevant and applicable no matter what material conditions – demographic, technological, environmental, etc. – might happen to arise over time.
³ military conscription and jury “duty,” if not freely chosen, constitute involuntary servitude and therefore cannot be imposed except as a just sentence for a duly convicted criminal
ADSum would prefer the koran.
Care to elaborate?
What does this change? Nothing ,but if we pull God out of everything and that is what this is all about then we become the one world nation which is were we are headed then this means that the Bible is comming true Fast. So for all the people who think that the bible is not real then think again how can all this be going on and yet it was wrote over 2000 years ago that this would happen and now everyone is pressing for it? I think we need to keep it the way it is and We need to pray about the way things are , treat people with respect, and let God take care of the Economy. No man can fix this world if you think that a man can fix it then your all in trouble. We let it get this bad and we did it based on "I NEED MORE" that is why we are the way we are and we need to stand back and look at the problem people need to stop wanting and start giving and leave this nation and what it stands for alone. We are One Nation under God and that is what it needs to stay at. Know your place and stand for something or you will fall for everything...
Mr. Zakaria:
Thank you for providing the forum for people to submit their ideas and state their priorities for revision of the foundational document of the country. Despite some of the insanity that is apparent in a few of the postings, a bit like turning on a CB radio near the location of a large truck stop, I can't help but think that there is significant value somewhere within in the exchange. Some have pointed out that we should be doing this kind of thing all the time and on many levels, anyway. The job of managing self-governance could reasonably be acknowledged as being too important to delegate to others to the extent that they decide what to do, how to do it, what to pay for it . . . Historically, there was no alternative. Now that everyone over the age of 5 has access to computers and telephones, things can be done differently. Considering the variance in the degree of success that we have achieved previously, things should be done differently. Politicians, generally, have proven that they cannot be trusted to get it right. If we have banks that are deemed too big to fail, we have governments that are too critical to the well-being of the population to be allowed to fail. There are those who have not only failed those they are there to represent, they have taken advantage and victimized those whose interests they have been chosen to protect. We are said to have the highest prison population in the world. I am dismayed that so few of the inmates are former politicians or bank and insurance executives instead of drug addicts. Can we entrust the current politicians to handle the task of modernizing the Constitution? Absolutely not. It needs to done on the basis of a public referendum to instruct a special delegation that excludes political and commercial interests. A delegation of conscientious social systems designers. The momentum for the accomplishment of such an undertaking will have to be driven by the citizens. We're talking about doing the job the government was supposed to be doing anyway. We need to establish a special penal system for attorneys based on public-imposed standards of ethics and behavior. The legal system is clearly not capable of self-regulation, and, has been allowed to be responsible for defining and/or regulating everything else through domination of the legislative and judicial systems. Are we nuts? The fox is in the hen house.
"t needs to done on the basis of a public referendum to instruct a special delegation that excludes political and commercial interests.." You mean a parliament, or a politburo? Go back to Mother Russia.
Schwarzenegger for President! That is all.
1) Amendment that requires the debt to be balanced 2) A ban on American military intervention in which non NATO, EU, or other allies are under attack. 3) An Ethics Amendment that will force politicians to act in the best interests of the people instead of themselves.
Those are my top 3
Please watch the video on my channel, subscribe and share it with those whom you know. It is not a waste of your time I promise you.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FromOneMany
Three proposed amendment to take the corruption out of politics.
1. The president may not represent or be chosen for candidacy by any political party. He/she will elected by the electoral college to represent all citizens. The entire process of selection and funding the presidential election will be controlled by the House of Representatives.
2. Elections and campaigns will be finance solely the government. All elections within a state will be financed by that state. No private or corporate money may to donated to any candidate.
3. No government employee may belong to a union. They will depend on elected officials for fair wages and benefits.
Three amendments: 1. Require Congress to pass a balanced budget, 2. Return the Senate to state house selection rather than popular vote, 3. Restate the 10th Amendment because no one seems to get it.
1) Elections reform. This would include: A) Election of the president by popular vote, not more electoral collage. B) Federal Term limments of 3 terms for house and senate positions, 20 years max for each position for judges, this would include the Supreme Court. C) Declare only living persons are citizens and only they can contribute to elections or pay for lobbyist. Corporations and unions have no ability to pay for lobbyist or contribute to elections. D) No more info ads to “inform voters”. E) Limit the amounts of funds that can be used by candidates for national offices. F) Enable full voting rights for all Citizens by allowing the citizens living in the District of Columbia to vote for Maryland House and Senate positions (after all the land was originally from Maryland). Give full voting rights to the one House representative for the US protectorates.
2) Citizenship reform. Define citizenship as: A) Having one or more USA citizen as a parent (by birth or adoption) regardless of place of birth. B) Being a naturalized citizen as defined by Congress. No more just being born in the USA. End of story.
3) Gun reform. Clarify that a “well regulated militia” is the State National Guard. Private Citizens have the right to one side arm and three rifles/shotguns. Any guns over this amount would require a gun collector licenses and firearm registration from the local police agency. The maximum magazine or capacity of the chamber would be 15 rounds.