Is the US constitution perfect? What would you change about it?

[NTMBK]

Install Queen Elizabeth II as monarch.

 

[Jaskalas]

1: Senators return to being appointed by their respective State.
2: The Feds can only collect taxes or fees from the State Governments.

 

[Sonikku]

I would rewrite the 2nd amendment to make it clear we are talking about private citizens not militias and assault rifles, not one shot muskets/pistols.

 

[Bowfinger]

1. Money is NOT protected free speech

2. The Bill of Rights applies only to actual individuals and not to organizations (corporations, unions, etc.) Congress would still be free to pass legislation defining organizations' free speech rights, for example, but they would not have Constitutional protection.

3. (Something to abolish the two-party system, perhaps a system of proportional representation as others have suggested)

 

[nehalem256]

Well you have to remember that unlike you they actually know something about the Constitution and the structure of US law.

What structure? Seems to me like what you keep saying is they just making it up as the go along and they can freely determine that whole sections of the constitution are just there for shits and giggles.

Certainly explains how the whole NSA spying stuff works

 

[Atreus21]

Shrug. To me the constitution is irrelevant.

Never forget that the Soviet Union had constitutionally-protected rights to free speech, press, and religion. Did it make a difference? Of course not.

 

[Tom]

Why are those categories the only things worthy of special protection?

Although given that your amendment would pretty clearly outlaw affirmative action I guess it wouldn't be all bad



Removing birthright citizenship is not about hating immigrants. Its about not reward lawbreakers and people seeking to abuse the system.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

Yea, well I don't see a baby born in my country as abuse. I welcome them.

 

[nehalem256]

Yea, well I don't see a baby born in my country as abuse. I welcome them.

So you don't think women coming to America, from say China, for vacation so they can give birth and gain citizenship for their child is not abuse?

Why not just give everyone in the world US citizenship then? Welcome them right?

 

[Tom]

So you don't think women coming to America, from say China, for vacation so they can give birth and gain citizenship for their child is not abuse?

Abuse of what ? I already said I welcome it, your the one who thinks it's abuse so explain yourself.

Abuse indicates harm, who is harmed by an American baby of Chinese mother ?

 

[nehalem256]

Abuse of what ? I already said I welcome it, your the one who thinks it's abuse so explain yourself.

Abuse indicates harm, who is harmed by an American baby of Chinese mother ?

Zhou believes that a cheaper education is often a motivating factor, and his pitch to prospective clients includes the notion that public education in the United States is "free." One of his clients, Christina Chuo, explains that her parents "paid a huge amount of money for their education" in the United States because they were foreign students; having an American citizen child permits her child to acquire the same education at a lower tuition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

American taxpayers are harmed by subsidizing the education of Chinese children that claimed American citizenship due to birth tourism.

And again:

Why not just give everyone in the world US citizenship then? Welcome them right?

After all according to you there is no harm in it right?

 

[Tom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

American taxpayers are harmed by subsidizing the education of Chinese children that claimed American citizenship due to birth tourism.

And again:


After all according to you there is no harm in it right?

I'm not going to respond to you putting words in my mouth.

As to subsidizing education..what ?

How is anyone "harmed" by educating a child ?

We don't see the world in the same way. My America is the way it is because most Americans believe America stands for more than a privileged few keeping it all for themselves.

It's an old argument but I'm happy that in America greed doesn't always win.

 

[Sheep221]

Ban guns ban guns ban guns ban guns

 

[SaurusX]

I'd make it so that gorillas would be citizens.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm not going to respond to you putting words in my mouth.

What words am I putting in your mouth. You are claiming that no one is harmed by giving essentially random people US citizenship. So why shouldn't we give it to everyone?

As to subsidizing education..what ?

How is anyone "harmed" by educating a child ?

Americans are harmed by paying for the education of a Chinese student who gets American citizenship on a silly technicality.

We don't see the world in the same way. My America is the way it is because most Americans believe America stands for more than a privileged few keeping it all for themselves.

It's an old argument but I'm happy that in America greed doesn't always win.

So then again. By your own claim we should give everyone in the world US citizenship and stop keeping America for the privileged few.

EDIT: And in fact the system of birthright citizenship is clearly perpetuating a system of privilege by giving US citizenship to rich chinese that can afford birth tourism, but not to poor chinese who cannot.

 

[1prophet]

Clarify that eminent domain is for public use projects only , not some slick developer promising more tax revenue if he is allowed to confiscate property for private use.

Clarify that police can't confiscate property without a trial and guilty verdict, example if you are traveling with 10,000 cash they can't take it under the drug laws and let you go and keep it for themselves even though there was no evidence of a drug crime.

Clarify that corporations are entities composed of people not people themselves, corporations don't make decisions rather the officers with authority in the said corporation make decisions and should be personally responsible and held fully accountable for them especially if they violate the law, no more just fine a corporation and it gets charged as a cost of doing business.

Clarify that if corporations want free speech rights, the names of the executives approving the free speech must be evident in a clear and obvious manner, example if a corporation takes out an ad approving a candidate the approving officers names must be clearly identifiable.

Clarify that the only time the government can take away the right not incriminate oneself is by giving full federal immunity.


The government cannot take away your first amendment right to speak out against injustices through secret court orders and secret courts, no secret courts, no secret warrants, no secret witnesses.

 

[NoStateofMind]

...

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
- Lysander Spooner

 

[Lithium381]

:thumbsup:

...

 

[Atreus21]

...

Well, it does serve the purpose of illustrating how far we've fallen.

But otherwise I agree. A constitution in the end is a piece of paper. It only limits government to the extent government chooses to be constrained by it.

 

[Lithium381]

1: Senators return to being appointed by their respective State.
2: The Feds can only collect taxes or fees from the State Governments.

your second point is interesting . . . please elaborate

 

[Lithium381]

Well, it does serve the purpose of illustrating how far we've fallen.

But otherwise I agree. A constitution in the end is a piece of paper. It only limits government to the extent government chooses to be constrained by it.

yep, consent of the governed works on both sides right?

 

[Zaap]

Shrug. To me the constitution is irrelevant.

Never forget that the Soviet Union had constitutionally-protected rights to free speech, press, and religion. Did it make a difference? Of course not.

Kind of silly comparison. If you notice, many dictatorial regimes give themselves names that are designed to sound ideal. My favorite is: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Sound really swell. Too bad EVERY word of the name is a complete lie. "Democratic" is of course laughable, nothing is the peoples'-rather EVERYTHING is the state's, nor is it a Republic.

So basically, taking a single word of something like the original Soviet constitutions seriously is just an exercise in beating your head against the wall- it was a regime designed from the name up on state-run propaganda and deception. To believe a word of it, is to believe that you could pick up Pravda and believe that Dear Leader Stalin loves the people and has everything figured out so there will be no more famine and shortages.

We certainly have politicians that love trying do everything they can to skirt around our constitution and do whatever they want, just like dictators in other countries do, but come on. It's still nothing like the complete farce of pure propaganda and fraud that communist/socialist dictatorships are.

 

[Jadow]

only land owners should be able to vote

 

[Humpy]

1. For every new law they have to eliminate two old ones.

2. I don't see much of a point anymore in having both State and Federal Governments. Could probably get rid of States and just have one set of laws and services for all.

3. Most of what everyone else posted too with elections. Simplify/eliminate electoral college, instant run offs, somehow removing all the money/fund raising from elections, term limits, consequences for screw up politicians, etc., anything and everything that can be done to get more people voting for more candidates from more political parties.

 

[irishScott]

Meh, I'd make a few modifications to the 2nd amendment to further empower gun owners. (Namely, I'd define "arms" as "any standard-issue weapon in current use by the military") and term limits.

There should never be any such thing as a "career politician" when the position is an elected office.

 

[Indus]

only land owners should be able to vote

1 vote per owner (irrespective of how many properties owned) or the whole family gets to vote or 1 vote per property?