Re-write the U.S. Constitution

[glenn1]

All right, you're strong in your political beliefs, you've always said that 'if i were in charge,' and shook your head at why things the way they were. Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution (link to the Amendments is at the bottom of the page), what would you change if you had the power to do so?

Only a couple of restrictions... first of all, you cannot unilaterally turn the country into a despotic state (no making yourself President-for-life or outlawing a political party, etc.), and you cannot take rescind any basic human rights (i.e. bring back slavery, etc.).

Apart from that, everything is fair game. Think that the Second Amendment is an archaic relic of the past? Abolish it. Think term limits is a good idea? Add it as a new Amendment. I simply ask that you give a brief statement supporting and giving your rationale behind any change you propose.

Have fun!

 

[Carbo]

Marriage shall be outlawed. As it presently exists, it favors women. It endangers a man's health, particularly his sex drive. It often leads to children. And it always leads to in laws.

 

[pulpp]

i dont think i would change anything in the constitution, the founding fathers were much wiser than we give them credit for

 

[Maetryx]

Maetryx here,

I would clarify that the "freedom of religion" is not "freedom from religion". That atheisim or agnosticism are relgious worldviews. Secularism is not neutral ground, but simply another religion and you can't force it on anyone.

Then I would clarify that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact the right to keep and bear small arms of the variety carried by a typical infantry soldier. If it is called a peace-keeping small arm in Kosovo when U.N. soldiers wield one, then it shouldn't be called a fully automatic assault rifle when a law-abiding civilian buys one. There is no question that the 2nd Amendment meant exactly what I described. Supreme Court decisions up to the 1960s affirmed that there could be no infringement on military use firearms owned by the citizens. Thus a tax was instituted by the ATF in 1933(?) on sawed off shotguns because the Court ruled it was not a military weapons, and thus not protected by the Constitution. This tax was an outrageous $200 on a $5 weapon.

There would not be citizens of the United States. We would be citizens of the various states. This is how we started: an alliance of the original states. I would abolish the Amendment that started the national income tax. I would allow any state that wanted to separate from the union to peacefully do so.

I would return education to the states and counties, and get rid of the Department of Education (which has only been around a couple decades).

I would repeal most of the Federal crimes that weren't actually Federal crimes. I would immediately unwrite 20,000 gun laws, abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireams (all of which are legal) and abolish the Drug Enforcement Administration.

I would turn the tax structure upside down. Local communities would get most of the taxes, then the states would get a good sized chunk, and the greatly reduced Federal government would get the littlest amount of taxes. No longer would states have to go begging to Leviathan to get some money for their schools, roads, farmers, or other state concerns.

I would institute a unicameral legislation, that is I would combine the House and the Senate into one Parliament. They would not be able to add pork during the conference committee process via some flunky clerk with deniability. And while i was at it, I would declare null and void ALL Executive Orders and then declare the process unconstitutional (it is because it violates the separation of powers).

There would be an immediate end to all fees collected by various departments of the Executive branch. In other words, all fees at National Parks, fines paid to the EPA, fees paid to the BATF (which I already abolished) are unconstitutional. Only the legislature can collect money from the people.

We would return to the gold standard for our money, and that private bank known as Federal Reserve would be eliminated from governmental affairs. There would be no more subsidies for anything. There would be strong tarriffs at our borders so that military hats made in China would not be cheaper than ones made in America. NAFTA, that 20,000 page document that supposedly gives us free trade in North America would be torn into small pieces.

Then the USA would recognize the treason of Jimmy Carter when he unilaterally gave the Panama Canal away with a treaty that was modified AFTER it was ratified. Puerto Rico would become a state or go away. The military would be lined up on our southern border with orders to end the illegal immigrant problem with direct force.

And then we could get something good going.

 

[glenn1]

wow, very comprehensive Maetryx... you put a lot of thought into that... let's see if we can get some other responses

 

[pulpp]

impressive reply Maetryx

 

[A5]

<< I would clarify that the &quot;freedom of religion&quot; is not &quot;freedom from religion&quot;. That atheisim or agnosticism are relgious worldviews. Secularism is not neutral ground, but simply another religion and you can't force it on anyone. >>


Agreed. Atheism/Agnosticism are not the absence of religion, they just happen to believe that there is nothing to believe in

On your 2nd Amendment issues:
Again, I agree. The purpose of the amendment IMHO was to make sure that the people could overthrow their government if the need arises.



<< There would not be citizens of the United States. We would be citizens of the various states. This is how we started: an alliance of the original states. >>


Your facts are correct, but I think the people need a strong national identity, so I respectfully disagree



<< I would abolish the Amendment that started the national income tax. >>


That is kind of drastic...how would you pay for our military?



<< I would allow any state that wanted to separate from the union to peacefully do so. >>


This would have prevented a little thing in the 1860s...too bad we didn't have it then



<< I would return education to the states and counties, and get rid of the Department of Education (which has only been around a couple decades). >>


Good idea. What does the DOE do, anyway?



<< I would repeal most of the Federal crimes that weren't actually Federal crimes. >>


Like what? Surely treason would still be one...



<< I would immediately unwrite 20,000 gun laws >>


Or just edit the 2nd Amendment to say that no gun laws can be written.(Remember, this is what you would change about the Constitution)



<< I would institute a unicameral legislation, that is I would combine the House and the Senate into one Parliament. >>


Bad idea. A major part of the separation of powers is that there are checks inside the legislative branch itself.

Good ideas on the pork, fees and EOs. The rest of it doesn't really deal with the Constitution though:disgust:

 

[wQuay]

I agree with maetryx, but with one addition: the federal government MAY NOT tax individuals, but must obtain revenue by taxing an equal % of each state's budget, interstate corporations, international businesses, and of course tarriffs.

*edit* I don't agree with his unicameral proposition. Bad idea.

 

[reitz]

<< This is how we started: an alliance of the original states. >>

And how long did that alliance last? Don't forget that the Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation were a failure.

 

[Bozo Galora]

very impressive Maetryx

 

[Squisher]

One huge atta boy Maetryx

 

[Bozo Galora]

This is the Supreme Ct. decision that Maetryx referred to:
Miller Vs. U.S. (1939)

To set this up a few things must be explained. The US Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 in reponse to a baby in a stroller being killed by stray Thompson Machine Gun fire by warring Prohibition gangs. Up to this point, one could just walk into a store and buy a Thompson or BAR and put down $25 and walk out. The NFA placed a $200 transfer tax on a series of named weapons including machine guns, sawed off rifles/shotguns, pen guns, silencers etc. This tax law also mandated a registration scheme since weapons are non consumeable, as opposed to cigarretes and alcohol. Note that the law DID NOT OUTLAW these weapons, only TAXED them. Thats why when you are busted for machine gun possession you are not breaking a penal/criminal law, only a tax violation equal to smuggling cigarrettes. To this day there is no Federal Law against owning a machine gun, tho they did put in a &quot;freeze&quot; a few years ago - no new weapons in the &quot;pool&quot;. Note also that this was during the great depression when $200 was a princely sum, all but denying the average citizen from owning this class of weapon. When you paid your $200 you were issued a tax stamp, just like the one on alcohol and cigarrettes, as you are today.
About five years after the NFA was passed, an enterprising lawyer for two rum runners who were caught with a sawed off Stevens double barrel shotgun in Kansas, challenged the law saying his clients, Miller and Layton, had their second amendment rights violated and should be freed. THE APPEALS COURT AGREED WITH HIM AND FREED THE MEN.
Now for the important part:
The US Government lawyers at the Just. Dept. KNEW the NFA law was unconstitutional and were on shakey ground so they DELIBERATELY PICKED this &quot;overturn&quot; to challenge to the Supreme Ct. Since a sawed off shotgun (at that time) could not be reasonably considered a militia weapon, they had a good case. IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH NOT FILING FOR TAX STAMP ON A FULL AUTO BAR 30-06 (a true militia weapon), and the gov't had challenged that being overturned, THEY WOULD HAVE LOST AND THE NFA ACT WOULD HAVE BEEN NULLIFIED. Remember: they are challenging an &quot;overturn&quot;. Also note &quot;no appearance for appellees&quot;. Miller and Layton and their lawyer were long gone, and could care less, this was a hand picked slimy gov't action.


UNITED STATES vs. MILLER et al.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.

No. 696. Argued March 30, 1939 -- Decided May 15, 1939

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in
interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches
long, without having registered it and without having in his possession
a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the
States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, and Narcotic
Act cases. P. 177.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
P. 178.
The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel
less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore
can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right
to keep and bear such a weapon.

26 F. Supp. 1002, reversed.



Appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act from a judgement sustaining a
demurrer to an indictment for violation of the National Firearms Act.

Mr. Gordon Dean argued the cause, and Solicitor General Jackson,
Assistant Attorney General McMahon, and Messrs. William W. Barron,
Fred E. Strine, George F. Kneip, W. Marvin Smith, and Clinton R. Barry
were on a brief, for the United States.

No appearance for appellees.

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged
that Jack Miller and Frank Layton &quot;did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully,
and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore
in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of
Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens
shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification
number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm
in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm
as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United Stated Code (Act of
June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4 [% 5], 48 Stat. 1237), and not having
in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as
provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code (June 26, 1934,
c. 737, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority
of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved
June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and
provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States. [1]

A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not
a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the
States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition
of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- &quot;A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.&quot;

The District Court held that section eleven of the Act violates the
Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed
the indictment.

The cause is here by direct appeal.

Considering Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, and
what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the Harrison Narcotics Act [2]
-- United States v. Jin Fuey Moy (1916), 241 U.S. 394; United States v.
Doremus (1919), 249 U.S. 86, 94; Linder v. United States (1925), 268 U.S. 5;
Alston v. United States (1927), 274 U.S. 289; Nigro v. United States (1928),
276 U.S. 332 -- the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved
to the States is plainly untenable.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
a &quot;shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length&quot; at this
time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within
judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military
equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette
v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power --
&quot;To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving
to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed
by Congress.&quot; With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted
and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is
set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without
the consent of Congress. The sentiment at the time strongly disfavored
standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country
and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily,
soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable
of acting in concert for the common defense. &quot;A body of citizens
enrolled for military discipline.&quot; And further, that ordinarily when
called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended
account of the Militia. It is there said: &quot;Men of republican principles
have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.&quot; &quot;In
a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman,
predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of
the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this
distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those
two different species of military force.&quot;

&quot;The American Colonies In The 17th Century,&quot; Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII,
affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England --
&quot;In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on
the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation
of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions,
to cooperate in the work of defense.&quot; &quot;The possession of arms also
implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite
as much attention to the latter as to the former.&quot; &quot;A year later [1632]
it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms
might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the
legislation of the colony [Massachusetts].&quot;

Also &quot;Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition
by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important
enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for
delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage
of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and
musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided
that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece,
sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,'
not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches,
nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer,
and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets,
and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each
company should be musketeers.&quot;

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784, provided for
the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the
Train Band should &quot;contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty
years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of
age, ...&quot; Also, &quot;That every non-commissioned officer and private
soldier of the said militia not under the controul [sic] of parents,
masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the
judgement of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall
equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,&quot; &amp;c.

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 the New York Legislature directed:
&quot;That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State,
or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except
such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of
Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain
or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside,
within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the
Company of such Beat. ... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified,
shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own
Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt,
a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges
suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing
a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and
Knapsack; ...&quot;

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening's Statutes)
declared, &quot;The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having
its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.&quot;

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and
directed that &quot;All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and
fifty years,&quot; with certain exceptions, &quot;shall be inrolled or formed
into companies.&quot; &quot;There shall be a private muster of every company
once in two months.&quot;

Also the &quot;Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective
muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon,
armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned
officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball,
and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet
and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made,
to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to the musket, a good
knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and
private shall have at every muster one pound of good powder, and four
pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant
shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective
companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies
arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties
westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto,
shall not be obligated to be armed with muskets, but may have good
rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said
officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep
the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced
whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make
it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for
trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot
purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be
purchase out of the money arising for delinquents.&quot;

Most if not all of the States have adopted provision touching the
right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed
in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning
the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford
any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by
writers are cited. [3]

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the
challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded
for further proceedings.

 

[Maetryx]

Maetryx here,

Wow. Thanks for the support.

reitz: Even after the Constitution, we were more of an alliance compared to the Federation we have become. Of course, we became a nation with the Constitution, and not just a treaty organization like NATO, but Still, the Federal component was a lot more limited.

wQuay: Yes, the proportional taxes. I agree with your tax structure. Also I am not opposed to a national sales tax but I haven't looked into it enough to know if I should be opposed. But I really don't like income tax. It makes me a serf for 30% or my workday.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would add that science is also just another religion and that all scientific progress could have just as easily been achieved by prayer. Yea right. Like non-belief is just another belief. Get real

I would add a progressive tax going up to 99% at a million a year to insure that people worked because they love to ard are inspired by a drive to create ratyher than greed for money. This would completely revolutionize the country with the best of the best in terms of ethics, morality, and culture rising quickly to the fore.

Epunge the notion that money=speech and that corporations are individuals. If so than give them a 4 score and 7 year charter and then disolve them.

 

[Raspewtin]

<< I would add a progressive tax going up to 99% at a million a year >>




:Q

 

[desertdweller]

<<
I would add a progressive tax going up to 99% at a million a year to insure that people worked because they love to ard are inspired by a drive to create ratyher than greed for money. >>




You'd leave them $1,000 per year to live on?


Don't you drive a Rolls?

I would firm up the 2nd amendment.
I would also end this silly &quot;freedome from religion&quot;.
I would write in a specific percentage that the feds
could take out of the GNP per year based on the
previous year in taxes.
I would write in lawyers as being part of the judicial branch,
the law of the land should not be an industry, and a fair
trial should not be comensurate with how much you spend.
I would end jury picking, jury would be set by the draw.
I would end the department of education and FTA.
I would write in term limits for legislators.
I would write in specifically that the government under no
cicomstances may sue any citizen, business or industry that is
legal.
DD

 

[brxndxn]

Progressive tax up to 99%? That's stupid liberal crap coming from the stupid liberal head of a stupid liberal that doesn't think first or have a clue about fairness, capitalism, freedom, or life in general.

 

[notfred]

well, first off, I'd eliminate the 18th and 21st amendments.

I'd edit the second amendment to read:
&quot;The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon in any way&quot;

sixth amendment edited to:
&quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, vehicles, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.&quot;

The 12th amendment would be rewritten as to make the president and vice president elected directly by the people. Plain old popular vote.

I'd remove sections 2 through 5 of the 14th amendment.

I'd remove the 16th amendment.

And, finally, I'd add an amendment stating &quot;no law shall be passed which restricts a person's liberty in order to increase thier safety, also, no law shall be passed which restricts a persons right to ingest/consume/inhale/etc. any substance, on private property&quot;
Of course, it'd have to be rewritten so that it sounds better, but you get the idea.

I could probably think of more things, if I had thoguht bout it longer. Maybe I'll edit some stuff in the future.

 

[JellyBaby]

Sorry but you can't rewrite anything with the current group of scheming, bought-and-paid-for, &quot;elected&quot; officials running the show. The current Constitution will simply have to run its length with minor tweaks here and there. It's a pretty good one and should see us through at least a few more generations.

 

[Moonbeam]

brxndxn, like your CPU, you have water on the brain.

 

[ElFenix]

<< There would not be citizens of the United States. We would be citizens of the various states. This is how we started: an alliance of the original states. I would abolish the Amendment that started the national income tax. I would allow any state that wanted to separate from the union to peacefully do so. >>


we did start as citizens of the original states, and part of the civil war was about that: a proto-nationalism felt by the southern whites as they felt their economic basis in jeopardy, whether rightly or wrongly. i would argue that the united states today is much stronger for having a nationalism as the federal, rather than state, level, which helped us do things like enter into two wars in europe and fight communism.

as for the income tax, i find the idea a sound one from an economic perspective, if executed poorly. the laws are too complex in that regard, but an income tax is beneficial in leveling the business cycle. so i would keep with it.

as for separating peacefully, i believe that this could have been done prior to the civil war, as it is not specifically stated that seccession is illegal in the constitution, and all powers not for the feds are for the people and states. the courts had an opportunity to rule on it in the first half of the 1800s, but failed. but do remember that south carolina fired the first shot, not the union. it was war then, not before.




<< I would return education to the states and counties, and get rid of the Department of Education (which has only been around a couple decades). >>


you're right that the DoE is ineffective, does nothing, and we would be better off not funding it and simply returning that money to the states. but, i think that federal regulation of education systems should be in place, and the DoE should be empowered, to ensure that education is somewhat even across all states. currently this unequal education is a burden to interstate trade, as many companies and workers would not want to locate in an area with poor education. education is an investment in interstate trade, just like the interstate highways. by providing better workers the US succeeds.




<< I would repeal most of the Federal crimes that weren't actually Federal crimes. I would immediately unwrite 20,000 gun laws, abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireams (all of which are legal) and abolish the Drug Enforcement Administration. >>


i'll agree that most federal crimes aren't federal crimes at all, and should be repealed with the states being able to determine which, if any, should remain offenses. as for gun laws, perhaps it should be a state issue. i think there is merit in licensing gun owners, just as cars are licensed. after all, if you're a felon you do lose rights, owning a gun should be included as one. before anyone goes off on me, do remember that the rights enumerated in the constitution are not the only ones people are entitled to. perhaps the whole bill of rights, as the writers of the constitution initially wanted, should be canned. why? because there is a tendancy of the courts to read those as the only rights. also, getting rid of it would allow the current society to determine exactly what is a right.




<< I would institute a unicameral legislation, that is I would combine the House and the Senate into one Parliament. >>


i hammered this when the frickin' greens proposed it. now, since the specifics of what you propose aren't known to me, i'm going to have to be general. the reason this is horrible is because it gets rid of all the built-in safeguards within the legislative branch, the branch that is constitutionally the most powerful. the senate exists to be a deliberative body of people who can think, who aren't beholden to election cycles every couple of years in order to ensure that they do what is best in the long-term. the house is up for election every 2 years to make them responsive to people's immediate concerns, even if those concerns are not in the long-term best interest. combined, only the best written laws get through the legislative branch. this sort of legislative environment combined with a strong, independent executive is considered better for advanced democracies than parliamentary systems.





<< We would return to the gold standard for our money >>


theres all sorts of problems with that. theres a reason the gold standard broke down in the first place. maybe you don't remember your history. its because its incredibly inflexible and credit can't be provided when credit is needed. and its not even as stable as people try to make it sound.




<< that private bank known as Federal Reserve would be eliminated from governmental affairs. >>


the federal reserve is one of the best-performing central banks on the planet. i'm not sure why you would eliminate the central bank. do you want to de-stabilize the money supply, cause people to lose faith in banks? it is the lender of last resort. who do you want the money supply controlled by? the politicians? they would never get it right. look at brazil, argentina, and countless other monetary regimes where the money is controlled by politicians. none have the ability to stand firm and do what is best in the long term, so their economies are in shambles, unemployment is high, investment is low, etc. as opposed to the Federal Reserve and Deutchbank which have helped to drive the US and German economies to the pinnacle.




<< There would be no more subsidies for anything. >>


this really depends on what you call a subsidy. it is possible to call the F-22 Raptor, an advanced fighter in an age where threats seem low, a large subsidy for boeing. others would say its necessary to equip our pilots with the most survivable equipment money can buy, almost irregardless of cost.




<< There would be strong tarriffs at our borders >>


smooty-hawley tariffs. yeah, sure. again, read some history.




<< Puerto Rico would become a state or go away. >>


why? why even bother? how about the rest of our commonwealth holdings? guam, the virgin islands, the marianas? again, why?





<< he military would be lined up on our southern border with orders to end the illegal immigrant problem with direct force. >>


again, why? illegal immigration benefits the US! they work cheap, generally, pay taxes, and help make my life more comfortable.


i pretty much like the current constitution. perhaps an amendment should be in place that state that other rights exist that are not enumerated in the constitution, as i feel the government sometimes has a tendancy to view the bill of rights as the only rights.

 

[TripleJ]

There should be a president that is free of political pursuasion.

 

[iamfried]

Maetryx, I like a lot of your ideas. The fact that you are a serf for 30% of the day though is just a fact of life in the 21st cent. It is not just a U.S. thing. Maybe some people from other nations could write in what their tax bracket is.
I took a world politics class last summer (a while ago so I don't remember exact numbers) but I am quite sure that U.S. citizens are some of the least taxed people in the world. All or most of Europe pay more in taxes and Sweden (I believe) has the highest taxes >50%.
You are right in saying if we just cut a lot of the fat in the govt we could reduce some of this tax but doesn't the military make up for more than 40% of the U.S. federal budget. I know that foreign aid only makes up like <0.5% (not that you mentioned that)
The problem arises with restructuring the bureaucracy in one clean swipe. Cuting all of these programs would have a devestating effect on our economy. You would have to hire 1000's of people just to come up with a somewhat feasible plan to get it done.
Back to the military thing. My guess is that you want to get rid of the U.S. Military and just have individual state militaries? Just wondering.

 

[iamfried]

My change in the Constitution would be to get rid of the Electoral College. A good idea past it's useful life. Every vote should count equally and they don't now. My vote for GW here in California meant absolutely nothing. If I would have been in Florida, my vote could have had an impact. Turns out though, you could win a state by 1 vote (<.0001% of the populous) and then pick up (what is california's electoral count?) 53 electoral votes which makes up for almost 10% of the votes that &quot;count&quot;. Bogus...

 

[Moonbeam]

I want to reintroduce slavery with a $5 minimum wage. Oh wait, somebody already did that.

Well how about a Fed that can insure lending rates to keep enough people unemployed that wages don't rise. Oh damn, they got that too.