How would you make the U.S. Constitution perfect?

[Braznor]

I'm a staunch Hindu. I love Hinduism without its dogma. I believe Hinduism stands for the greater individual of the human spirit more than any ideology other there except the U.S Constitution.

George Washington might have never heard of Hinduism, but I believe there were functional Hindus because they believed in moral assimilation. Thats exactly India was a thousand years for now. India might be a shitty third world country today, but BUT BUT BUT I emphasize, BUT it unfailingly assimilated all cultures which came come upon it shores. I'm myself a product of cultural assimilation. Hindu, Muslim bring it all. I'm it.

So reliving all burdens of history (One of my ancestors was ordered to be trampled by an elephant by some stupid muslim ruler. I bear no grudge religiously for this though ) I must admit, the US constitution is the most superior of documents giving rights to its believers in the best way possible. If suppose aliens asked for human morality, I will tranmit them the US constitution myself.

What do Americans think their Constitution should be?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

What do Americans think their Constitution should be?

Enforced

 

[YoungGun21]

Rewritten? Updated?

Or perhaps just stop having it be stretched and misinterpreted so that anyone can support their idiotic arguments from it?

 

[Braznor]

Enforced

You are so wrong.

Even as a third worlder who has never been outside of his country I know the U.S is a very moral nation.

 

[BoomerD]

Something better than "A gawd-damned piece of paper."

 

[Anarchist420]

I think the U.S. Federal Constitution sucks and needs to be repealed and either replaced with nothing or the Articles of Confederation.

 

[thraashman]

Interpreted without political bias.
Absolutely not interpreted by Ron Paul who seriously doesn't understand it.

 

[Sunburn74]

I would like to see the constitution updated. There are huge conflicts of interests that politicians face that our founding fathers never could forsee. They never foresaw how corporate interests could undermine democracy so blatantly as they do today. Or how important campaign finance would be to election.

I personally would like to see
1) no member of the house or the senate be up for re election (to relieve the conflict of interest of having to levy the publics interest vs the personal interest of being re elected)
2) the general public being able to vote on members of the supreme court
3) methods of selecting exceptional and talented individuals to serve in government that does not rely on party politics or outside campaign finance (this is actually pretty easy to do*, though it will never happen since those in power would effectively lose power)
4) corruption in government being considered treason
5) serious revision of the 2nd amendment and the 8th amendment


*lets talk about presidential campaign though this is applicable to government on every level

First you need basic criteria for application. Consider something like US citizens between the ages of 18-69 are eligible, must have a bachelors degree or military service, most pass a rigorous test on US history, world history, and economics (if you can't talk fluently about the spanish american war, you shouldn't be in government) as put together by some committee of the best university professors in the country (something where if you study for a year or 2 you can pass it, but the average person shouldn't be able to pass it just walking off the street), no history of crime, etc etc.

So lets say 4 million people are eligible and apply. Have a random selection of 100,000 out of that number. Have them all fly to a camp in like wisconsin or something and break them up into groups of 25. Give each group of 25, 3 days to select the best guy out of that group to be president (ie a vote, a point system, whatever, it really doesn't matter, just have all these people who are vying for the same job, pick the best guy). Each winner moves upward and you repeat the process with the winners until you are down to about 5 or so (the cream rises to the top). Then have the general public vote on these 5 guys with an 11th option "of none of the above". You can even throw in a little bit of government sanctioned campaigning, but no outside contributions or even use of personal funds for that end.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Enforced

+1

 

[Fenixgoon]

+1

+2

 

[Jaskalas]

Enforced

:thumbsup:x3

Only problem today is tyranny of the majority and the dictation of a centralized power. Return us to a Congress of LIMITED ENUMERATED powers, enforce the Bill of Rights from beginning to end, and let states handle the rest.

What would make the U.S. Constitution more perfect is if we actually practiced the freedom and liberty which we preach.

 

[BoomerD]

Enforced

But...enforced to whose "interpretation" of what the Constitution actually says or means?

 

[Sunburn74]

:thumbsup:x3
let states handle the rest.

What would make the U.S. Constitution more perfect is if we actually practiced the freedom and liberty which we preach.

The whole states idea was a cockamamie one in the first place. What if you body functioned like the US, where your hand was always opposed to brain or your stomach to your heart? If you really want efficiency in government, you can't have 50 different governments doing their own thing.

 

[Jaskalas]

The whole states idea was a cockamamie one in the first place. What if you body functioned like the US, where your hand was always opposed to brain or your stomach to your heart? If you really want efficiency in government, you can't have 50 different governments doing their own thing.

Communists want efficiency, I want freedom.

The planet has more than a 100 different government doing their own thing. You wish that to end as well?

I believe in plurality, in diversity. Not everyone must be dictated to and commanded from a centralized power. That's a horrible idea.

 

[epidemis]

But...enforced to whose "interpretation" of what the Constitution actually says or means?

We all know the constitution is a "god damn piece of paper"

 

[Zebo]

I'd get money out of politics otherwise the Constitution is the most perfect document in the history of mankind...to the degree it's followed.



"All elections shall be paid from the general fund not exceeding 1% of revenue and evenly disbursed between candidates who have collected signatures of 10% in districts they reside or nationally for president.."

 

[Sunburn74]

Communists want efficiency, I want freedom.

The planet has more than a 100 different government doing their own thing. You wish that to end as well?

I believe in plurality, in diversity. Not everyone must be dictated to and commanded from a centralized power. That's a horrible idea.

Lol. Efficiency is associated with communism? And if you want efficiency you indirectly want communism?

Diversity is a beautiful thing and nor do you need centralized power for everything. At the same time, even you must understand that the way we divide out country up is many ways quite harmful to its existence. Even look at the way we vote. A vote for a democrat here in texas is a vote wasted because once the state is carried, it is carried (texas is overwhelmingly republican). If the election were just a flat national majority, no votes would be wasted and you would have true representation of what the people want (they say 400 votes in one county carried George Bush to victory, when there are thousands of votes against him in other states that simply didn't matter at the end of the day once the state was carried). There is also this idea that "gee its their problem" when talking about other states as if we don't all share the same national debt, the same air, the same water, the same threats.

 

[xj0hnx]

The whole states idea was a cockamamie one in the first place. What if you body functioned like the US, where your hand was always opposed to brain or your stomach to your heart? If you really want efficiency in government, you can't have 50 different governments doing their own thing.

You obviously do not have a firm grasp on what this country is. Think about it when you say it the United States of America. The entire concept of our country is that there are individual states doing their own thing, with a federal government that handles the issues that effect them all.

 

[thraashman]

You obviously do not have a firm grasp on what this country is. Think about it when you say it the United States of America. The entire concept of our country is that there are individual states doing their own thing, with a federal government that handles the issues that effect them all.

But you need a strong centralized government because if you give the states too much power you end up with problems. Remember Jim Crow laws? Or segregration? Just last year a survey showed that 46% of Mississippi Republican voters thought interracial marriage should be illegal. You know, Mississippi, the extremely Republican run state. Imagine if the federal government just left a state like MS to it's own devices. There's a reason states rights can't be as powerful as they originally were

 

[Sunburn74]

Meh... there are plusses and minuses to both decentralized government as well as to centralized government. I feel we lean too strongly on the decentralized side, especially as technology makes the world grow smaller and smaller each day. [Back when travel was with horses and information took months to get to washington, state government was highly important. Today, its honestly more of a hassle than a benefit or protection imo]. If you disagree you disagree. I don't think any of this reflects at all on personal freedoms or what it means to be an American. I think it does reflect on how fragmented our country's sense of unity is, especially here in Texas where I regularly see bumper stickers emploring secession from the union and Texas becoming its own country.

 

[Lemon law]

There is a process to amend the constitution, and its lengthy and difficult.

And also activist SCOTUS judges like Scalia, who somehow seeming fail in reading comprehension, but still somehow manage to make the constitution read however that want it to mean. There were past tense liberal SCOTUS judge that pushed the constitution the other way, but at present and IMHO, its the "reactionary" activist judges that are the greatest danger at present.

 

[Craig234]

Interpreted without political bias.
Absolutely not interpreted by Ron Paul who seriously doesn't understand it.

This hatred of politics thing is misguided.

When it's bad, you hate it. If you have some sleazeball spinning evil, you hate them.

On the other hand, if you think ending child labor or protecting free speech or having legal standards for medical care are worthwhile, that's also politics.

Politicial bias is FINE. Bias for freedom, bias for justice, bias for literacy, bias against tyranny, etc. Bias for democracy. 'Hating politics' is what the bad guys want you to do.

Politics is how the people have power against the corrrupt narrow interests, the same types who were the nobility in England when we left.

They want you to get overly cynical,, to hate politicians, to not get involved in politics so they can more easily determine policies and corrupt the system for themselves.

If you just 'hate politics' you in effect hate the American system of government - and you are not too fond of the American people who lose their political power.

Beware when 'political bias' means 'opinion you don't like'.

When the Supreme Court decides an issue, there are often sides you agree and disagree with. All can have 'political bias', because *the constitution doesn't have the result*.

The court can rule 'the pill' is a right of the people, or it can rule the government can ban it, but either way, it's a political issue, and the constitution doesn't mention the pill.

That's why the constitution has vague language about how 'the people' (and the states) retain rights not mentioned - by saying that, they are given rights, in theory.

 

[nehalem256]

It seems other than perhaps needing to enforce the strictures of limited government better that the US Constitution is already perfect, because it contains a method of updating it for future needs unforeseen.

 

[Craig234]

Meh... there are plusses and minuses to both decentralized government as well as to centralized government. I feel we lean too strongly on the decentralized side, especially as technology makes the world grow smaller and smaller each day. [Back when travel was with horses and information took months to get to washington, state government was highly important. Today, its honestly more of a hassle than a benefit or protection imo]. If you disagree you disagree. I don't think any of this reflects at all on personal freedoms or what it means to be an American. I think it does reflect on how fragmented our country's sense of unity is, especially here in Texas where I regularly see bumper stickers emploring secession from the union and Texas becoming its own country.

Good point. The issues in 'states' rights' are quite differnet today than in the far more primitive days of the revolution.

Even then you had the conflicts - such as slavery - which got settled by a half million Americans being killed. Not a great solution.

That was the federal government correctly having a power. We can use people understanding when that's a good thing, not just ideology.

 

[micrometers]

-eliminate the 2nd amendment. I would still allow people to have guns in their homes and to go hunting with, but I really don't like concealed carry types who fantacize about scenarios where they can kill another person. Without a 2nd amendment, we would still have guns in this country.

- Supreme Court Justices serve 17 year terms

- Reduce the number of representatives in the House and Senate to roughly half.

- possibly just make it a parliamentary democracy. this would allow 3rd parties to flourish.