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

[werepossum]

For starters, considering our current situation it would certainly be more appropriate had the Constitution been written in red ink. Beyond that, in the original the wording should have been more precise. If you're going to write "all men are created equal", then the text of your Constitution should reflect that, period. It should not take a hundred years to realize the promise of the freakin Declaration of Independence. A balanced budget should have been a necessity, except in time of war, and given the original desire to avoid a standing army, wars should be expressly declared and funded by a defined tax on everyone. Term limits should be a necessity as well; even in the eighteenth century we knew that people who most want power are those who can least be trusted with it. There should be NO lifetime appointments, period. And the commerce clause needs to include "within the boundaries of this Constitution"; if the commerce clause confers unlimited power then there can be no Constitutional protection. I'd also like to see a reciprocity clause on treaties, so that no treaty could be enacted without reciprocal rights. No signing on to protect a nation with no obligation to fight for us. No allowing ownership of property and corporations by nationals of nations not extending those same rights to Americans.

With respect to the amendments, either justify all of them or none of them. The 14th should be revised to exclude babies born to people here illegally or temporarily without resident status. I don't know though how we could guard against the biggest threat - five clowns in gowns deciding that the 10th Amendment is useless and void, or that a person has the right to own another person, or that government has the right to take your property and deliver it to another if government benefits.

This would not have worked until recently, but stringent voter ID combined with instant run-offs would be a great thing, ensuring that any candidate taking office would do so with both majority support and legitimacy. I'd also propose an amendment that any government discrimination for or against anyone on the grounds of race, religion, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or damned near anything else has to be ratified by popular vote within six months or be ended.

 

[OutHouse]

abolish local governments from collecting property tax for homesteads.

 

[Agent11]

In regards to the 10th the meaning was clear, to limit the power of the federal government. The supreme court that made that ruling should have been tried for treason. It's written in plain english, they spelled out what authority the federal government had in the document, then said everything else is the domain of the states and the people. 'Interpretation' is not a free license to write off entire sections of the highest law in the land just because you can not or will not seek an amendment.

It was a power grab, and the court laid back and let the feds have what they wanted. An amendment written in iron clad lawyerese righting that wrong is something I could get behind.

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

No need to do any sort of proportional system, we just need an amendment protecting all parties right to participate without arbitrary rules designed to hinder them.

1.) Eliminate the electoral college. This is a no-brainer as it massively distorts the power of states based simply on the fact that they happen to be large and fairly evenly split. There is no reason why the concerns of Ohio, Florida, and Colorado should receive so much more attention than the needs of New York, California, and Texas.

Riight, because with an out of control federal government, uneducated, apathetic, and disenfranchised electorate easily swayed by giant media corporations what we need is more mob rule.



How about an amendment requiring ownership of land to vote in national elections and returning to senators being selected by the state legislature? A smaller party has a much better chance of campaigning on a state level, and would be able to appoint senators much easier than with the current system. Hopefully there would be more deliberate statesmen and fewer campaign show ponies. . . In what was intended to be the more deliberative of the two houses of congress.

Perhaps the average person would also realize what they lost and assign greater value to participation, self improvement, and property ownership.

As it stands now congress is a zoo, and presidential elections are poker games played by career liars.

 

[fskimospy]

Ben Franklin pretty neatly demolished the argument for property requirements to vote. Not only is that simply oligarchy, but he put it best:

Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election, the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers-but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or the jackass?

 

[nextJin]

Clarify the 2nd Amendment, Senators appointed by their respective States and clarify citizenship birthright to citizens as opposed to anyone.

Get rid of the EC and give parties equal time rights in debates.

The only thing that is even remotely possible is probably fixing citizenship rights. Nothing else will ever be changed.

If America did not have a welfare state where everyone is on their own then it wouldn't be a problem and that will never be fixed so we need to clarify it.

I'd like to see Military Service being a goto way for anyone to become a citizen ahead of those waiting in line. The person and their immediate family would become citizens after 6 years of service (4 active 2 inactive). After 4 years they can bring their families here and get temp status until the last 2 years are met.

This can already happen but it's not as robust.

 

[lxskllr]

I'd add the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, and remove the 13th, 15th, and 19th amendments due to being redundant.

 

[nehalem256]

Ben Franklin pretty neatly demolished the argument for property requirements to vote. Not only is that simply oligarchy, but he put it best:

While strict land ownership may be a silly requirement nowadays. The idea that some people are unfit to vote makes perfect sense.

I mean if you can't run your own life effectively, why should you be running anyone else's?

 

[NTMBK]

While strict land ownership may be a silly requirement nowadays. The idea that some people are unfit to vote makes perfect sense.

I mean if you can't run your own life effectively, why should you be running anyone else's?

Who decides who is fit to vote?

Year 1: "Oh, you're a meth-head, you're not eligible to vote."
Year 5: "Oh, you smoked a joint in college, you're not eligible to vote."
Year 20: "Oh, you failed your SATs, you're not eligible to vote."
Year 74: "Oh, your mother wasn't eligible to vote, you're not eligible to vote."

Disenfranchising people because you disapprove of their lifestyle is a dangerous path.

 

[nehalem256]

Who decides who is fit to vote?

Year 1: "Oh, you're a meth-head, you're not eligible to vote."
Year 5: "Oh, you smoked a joint in college, you're not eligible to vote."
Year 20: "Oh, you failed your SATs, you're not eligible to vote."
Year 74: "Oh, your mother wasn't eligible to vote, you're not eligible to vote."

Disenfranchising people because you disapprove of their lifestyle is a dangerous path.

I didn't realize being unable to feed yourself, or your bastard kids, constituted a "lifestyle". At least not for long

 

[fskimospy]

While strict land ownership may be a silly requirement nowadays. The idea that some people are unfit to vote makes perfect sense.

I mean if you can't run your own life effectively, why should you be running anyone else's?

You are mistaking the requirement to hold office with the right to vote.

While I'm sure you relish the idea of preventing women from voting, if you are a citizen of a democracy you should have a say in how that democracy is run. End of story.

 

[nehalem256]

You are mistaking the requirement to hold office with the right to vote.

While I'm sure you relish the idea of preventing women from voting, if you are a citizen of a democracy you should have a say in how that democracy is run. End of story.

Are you implying that women are less able to take care of themselves than men? :sneaky:
Please leave your women hating out of the thread eskimo

Why should an absolute democracy be considered a goal in and of itself?

If you want society to take care of you as a child then perhaps you should be treated as a child. And children are not allowed to vote.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you implying that women are less able to take care of themselves than men? :sneaky:
Please leave your women hating out of the thread eskimo

No, I'm implying that due to your well documented irrational hatred of women that you were likely thinking of ways that this could be used against them.

Why should an absolute democracy be considered a goal in and of itself?

If you want society to take care of you as a child then perhaps you should be treated as a child. And children are not allowed to vote.

Nope, you shouldn't. Even the stupidest among us should be able to quickly look at history and see how these requirements for voting are simply abused in order to marginalize outgroups.

I mean think about it this way, what if the Eskimospy Party were in power and instituted minimal rational thought requirements in order to vote? You'd never see the inside of a voting booth again.

 

[berzerker60]

Still one of the best Onion articles, and appropriate to this thread:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

 

[werepossum]

Ben Franklin pretty neatly demolished the argument for property requirements to vote. Not only is that simply oligarchy, but he put it best:

LOL That Franklin was a pretty sharp fellow to be, you know, round.

Still one of the best Onion articles, and appropriate to this thread:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

Pretty weak sauce for the Onion, but I did like:

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

 

[nehalem256]

No, I'm implying that due to your well documented irrational hatred of women that you were likely thinking of ways that this could be used against them.

I think you are projection your own secret hatred of women on to others. Given your repeated statements that women are basically retarded children.

Examples of your disdain of women:

(1) This thread: assertion that only letting people who can take care of themselves vote is anti-woman

(2) Assertion that women would rather let their own children starve than change their behavior.

 

[nehalem256]

Nope, you shouldn't. Even the stupidest among us should be able to quickly look at history and see how these requirements for voting are simply abused in order to marginalize outgroups.

I mean think about it this way, what if the Eskimospy Party were in power and instituted minimal rational thought requirements in order to vote? You'd never see the inside of a voting booth again.

You mean like believing that the 10th amendment was created strictly for shits and giggles?:sneaky:

 

[Tom]

I didn't realize being unable to feed yourself, or your bastard kids, constituted a "lifestyle". At least not for long

So you'd deny Kate Hudson the right to vote ?

 

[Tom]

You mean like believing that the 10th amendment was created strictly for shits and giggles?:sneaky:

Lots of people don't understand the Supreme Court ruling on the 10th Amendment. Their point isn't that Federal power isn't restricted, it's that it's already limited by the rest of the Constitution and therefore the 10th Amendment doesn't do anything but say the same thing.

The 10th doesn't take away any authority that's not already denied.

 

[Sonikku]

only land owners should be able to vote

Fine by me so long as living in an apartment means I don't pay taxes.

 

[Tom]

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?



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



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.

No, its not by my own claim. I said nothing about all the world and I'm not going to. All of that discussion is within you.

You still haven't explained the "harm" that occurs when a child is educated.

You are equating "harm" with "paying for". That interpretation is saying that the only thing that matters is money, which is what I'm saying is not what America actually stands for; despite all the cynicism and greed, the fact is that America, to your annoyance, values things other than money.

And even within the confines of money, there's plenty of proof that education is one of the key factors in the health and wealth of a society, so it isn't actually a harm to educate a child even from the point of view of money.

 

[nehalem256]

No, its not by my own claim. I said nothing about all the world and I'm not going to. All of that discussion is within you.

You still haven't explained the "harm" that occurs when a child is educated.

You are equating "harm" with "paying for". That interpretation is saying that the only thing that matters is money, which is what I'm saying is not what America actually stands for; despite all the cynicism and greed, the fact is that America, to your annoyance, values things other than money.

The harm isn't in the child being educated. The harm is the cost of having to pay to educated what are in every way except an archaic technicality other countries children.

Do you think if you took a poll of American's they would favor citizenship for birth tourists?

And even within the confines of money, there's plenty of proof that education is one of the key factors in the health and wealth of a society, so it isn't actually a harm to educate a child even from the point of view of money.

But in the case of birth tourism we birth tourism we are investing our money to better the health and wealth of other countries instead of America.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

nehalem256 said

I didn't realize being unable to feed yourself, or your bastard kids, constituted a "lifestyle". At least not for long

Your reply

So you'd deny Kate Hudson the right to vote ?

I think Kate Hudson can afford to feed herself and quite a few children

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/actress/kate-hudson-net-worth/

Kate Hudson Hollywood actress with an estimated net worth of $38 million.

 

[BUnit1701]

T...


But in the case of birth tourism we birth tourism we are investing our money to better the health and wealth of other countries instead of America.

You don't see this as a good thing because you think of yourself as an American citizen rather than a Earth citizen. Don't worry, the lefties will get you lined out.

 

[werepossum]

nehalem256 said

Your reply

I think Kate Hudson can afford to feed herself and quite a few children

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/actress/kate-hudson-net-worth/

And if you should see Kate Hudson, please tell her that I love her and really want to be with her in a very real and legally binding sense. As does my wife.

 

[Tom]

The harm isn't in the child being educated. The harm is the cost of having to pay to educated what are in every way except an archaic technicality other countries children.

Do you think if you took a poll of American's they would favor citizenship for birth tourists?



But in the case of birth tourism we birth tourism we are investing our money to better the health and wealth of other countries instead of America.

I like to deal in the real. In the actual world when wealth is created the world gets richer. It doesn't mean someplace else gets poorer.

Additionally, we are talking about an American. If an American wants to live in China that's no different than an American living in Paris. It's part of living in a free country and freedom and liberty are part of what makes life worth living.