new constitution
- Thread starter aTUfan
- Start date
The appointment practices for the SC need to be changed, also justices shouldn't serve for life. (Though their appointments should remain lengthy). The EC should be thrown out and we should implement ranked choice voting within states for the house seats.
The rights of the federal government to regulate some things that weren't outlined in the original constitution, but have broad effects on the success of the nation as a whole probably needs to be re examined, specifically the rights to oversee and regulate responses to pandemic viruses which don't care about state borders. Also, the idea that educational content should be locally determined needs to be thrown out. No offense, but many localities are run by parents of students who didn't do particularly well in school themselves.
The powers of the presidency need to be reigned in, especially the power to make war without the continuing consent of congress and the power to legislate via executive order. Amendments probably need to be made slightly easier to pass (though they shouldn't be so easy that the constitution changes frequently). I'm sure there are a million more that should probably be more well defined. Some of the bill of rights should be carefully revamped to deal with the effects modern technology have on us. (Social media, mass shootings, etc...) The impeachment and removal process needs to be made less partisan.
term limits,
take politics out of taxation; its economics, standardize election laws with ability for local variances.
tighter immigration laws.
NO deficient spending. revenues = spending.
census should only count citizens
take politics out of taxation; its economics, standardize election laws with ability for local variances.
tighter immigration laws.
NO deficient spending. revenues = spending.
census should only count citizens
No country in the world operates without debt. It’s part of the reason that we revere Alexander Hamilton. The level of the debt accumulation might be regulated though. (As a percentage of GDP perhaps)
The census should count both citizens and non-citizens for purposes of categorization and information, but apportionment should be conducted in proportion to citizens. We should also make DC and Puerto Rico States. Representation in the House needs to be increased beyond 435 to allow for more direct representation in states with large populations.
limit presidential campaign to the calendar year, and spending. no outside ads.
6 super tuesdays.
6 super tuesdays.
Last edited:
Tough to enforce, and sometimes it encourages compromise. I would say, limit it as best you can, but allow it on occasion. For example, moving the Capitol to DC could have probably been considered Pork.
Unfortunately the definition of pork resides in the eye of beholder. For some pork is borrowing $2T from China to give tax breaks to billionaires while for others it's bridges, roads, and child assistance. Maybe not perfect examples, but you you all get my drift. Hard to define.
We should add everything that makes it easier for my side to win and remove everything that makes it harder for my side to win. Let’s get rid of the rights my side doesn’t care about and invent new rights I do care about. Also make the president a dictator while my side is in power, but reduce him to the role of figurehead while the other side is in power.
That’s how this conversation always goes.
That’s how this conversation always goes.
Hence why you get everyone in a room and let them debate what should be compromised on. Just like the original constitution (but with the benefit of hindsight to see where we have deficiencies, unclear definitions, etc…)
The problem these days is that there are very few people experienced in all of the subjects they that are necessary to construct a constitution. We need people who are better versed in constitutional law, logical philosophy, historical governments, business, civil rights, technology, war, and justice.
I find it an interesting thought experiment to decide who would be best for that task. I would trust very few of those in federal or state Congress to be members of a convention although they inevitably would be.
Last edited:
Some people I would consider from all sides of the political spectrum… Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dan Carlin, Elizabeth Warren, John Boehner, Obama, Marc Cuban, Clint Eastwood (though he’s old for the task), one of the Koch Brothers, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence, John Roberts, Katie Porter, Ben Shapiro, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Jon Stewart, Chris Wallace. I’d like to get those people (with more additions to come) in a room and hear them argue out the laws of a nation. I’m probably a bit lax on lawyers and historians, but I’m sure they could be found.
Last edited:
reduce procedural poweres
pork is anything not pertaining to the subject of the bill. like an infrastructure bill that contains 85% non-subject stuff.
One of those provisions is literally for the states to call constitutional conventions you dunce.
eliminate the ability of the president to establish new laws through executive privilege and mandates.
reinstall the first ammendment right to free speech.
ensure freedom of the press. The news reports the facts, and opinions appear on the editorial page. limit the use of "anonymous" and unverified sources.
eliminate judge shopping.
this is a tough one; make judges focus on the law, not a political agenda.
you cant be the president, veep, congressman, or fed judge if you are not current with your taxes.
ensure freedom of the press. The news reports the facts, and opinions appear on the editorial page. limit the use of "anonymous" and unverified sources.
eliminate judge shopping.
this is a tough one; make judges focus on the law, not a political agenda.
you cant be the president, veep, congressman, or fed judge if you are not current with your taxes.
That is obviously a part of the constitution you dunce.
But that would not be a NEW constitution, you dunce.
Amendments to the constitution can take any form, including getting rid of previous parts of the constitution. You could strike any and all parts of the constitution and replace it with Green Eggs and Ham if enough states agreed to do so.
Amendment does not simply mean addition. A state constitutional convention is not required to only discuss singular issues, and it has become clearly evident that there are enough flaws in the document that possibly the only thing worth keeping verbatim might be the preamble.
Last edited:
Just a thought:
If a constitutional convention were held, and that's a big if, it wouldn't be because of unanimous consent. That is, there would be at least a few states that never agreed to even hold one.
Whatever came out of it, whether good or bad in my or your opinion, there would be some very pissed off people and likely some very pissed off states that did not feel one iota of obligation to this new "constitution" and would feel no duty to abide by it. Just think if aTUfan gets his wish and ballots are mandated to be only in English. What happens when California simply says, "Screw you guys, we have millions of citizens that speak Spanish. We'll do whatever we want and you try to stop us."
Or New Mexico for that matter, which has always been a bilingual state and even has the state Constitution written in both languages, as well as several guaranteed protections for native Spanish speakers enshrined therein. It was necessary to get the support of the native Hispanic communities for ratification, which have been here for hundreds of years and have citizenship claims every bit as valid as anyone else's. They aren't going to go down without a big fight.
Especially given how fractured American politics is at the moment... in my personal opinion, no matter how well-intentioned a constitutional convention was, and even if all parties showed up in good faith and hammered something out, it would probably be the beginning of a long period of conflict and possibly even the disintegration of the union. English only ballots is never going to happen, but that's just one easy example. Almost anything could set off a firestorm in some places and would.
Just my $0.02.
If a constitutional convention were held, and that's a big if, it wouldn't be because of unanimous consent. That is, there would be at least a few states that never agreed to even hold one.
Whatever came out of it, whether good or bad in my or your opinion, there would be some very pissed off people and likely some very pissed off states that did not feel one iota of obligation to this new "constitution" and would feel no duty to abide by it. Just think if aTUfan gets his wish and ballots are mandated to be only in English. What happens when California simply says, "Screw you guys, we have millions of citizens that speak Spanish. We'll do whatever we want and you try to stop us."
Or New Mexico for that matter, which has always been a bilingual state and even has the state Constitution written in both languages, as well as several guaranteed protections for native Spanish speakers enshrined therein. It was necessary to get the support of the native Hispanic communities for ratification, which have been here for hundreds of years and have citizenship claims every bit as valid as anyone else's. They aren't going to go down without a big fight.
Especially given how fractured American politics is at the moment... in my personal opinion, no matter how well-intentioned a constitutional convention was, and even if all parties showed up in good faith and hammered something out, it would probably be the beginning of a long period of conflict and possibly even the disintegration of the union. English only ballots is never going to happen, but that's just one easy example. Almost anything could set off a firestorm in some places and would.
Just my $0.02.
I'm torn on DC statehood as DC was specifically set up only to house the federal government. The growth of the city beyond that was actually never accounted for and maybe the city should be split into halves with citizens in one half actually being Virginia residents and the citizens in the other half being Maryland residents. This gives them direct voting privileges for their HoR and Senator(s). They can continue to be it's own city with a mayor and city council and whatever local government.
Puerto Rico- if that's what they want then fine.
The apportionment of Senators needs to be looked at. I understand the Senate is a great equalizer but in giving 2 Senators to a state like Wyoming that has a population less than the Tulsa metro area, you are thereby valuing empty space more than actual voters. And the only reason there is a Senate at all with equal representation among the states is because the South felt slighted they wouldn't get credit for owning slaves in the apportionment of Representatives.
I don't know that the 2A needs to be changed as much as interpreted as it was written and the "in order to maintain a well regulated militia..." phrase not ignored. Maybe define well-regulated militia as one serving at the behest and need of the state only as determined by the State's governor and elected representation BUT also at times of great national need, at the request of the POTUS.
I would agree on term limits for HoR and Senate, as well as, SCOTUS (max of 2 8-year terms for SCOTUS, 12 total years fo service for Senate and/or House (not to exceed 12 so you don't have folks jumping from one to the other to stay in office longer). And campaign finance needs to be laid out. Corporations are not citizens and I know this because corporations do not have a vote in our elections processes.
And no ballot shall make notation of party affiliation of any candidate.
(I want people to actually read some policy stances of candidates instead of just checking the old "R" by a candidate's name because they once stood for family values and we know that's not the case any more).
(I want people to actually read some policy stances of candidates instead of just checking the old "R" by a candidate's name because they once stood for family values and we know that's not the case any more).
I agree on DC Statehood. It's a liberal pipedream IMO, and outrageous to suggest a single city should get two siting Senators. It was never meant to be a permanent residence for a large community of people, that just kind of happened.
I do agree there should be a fix, but the thing that makes the most sense to me is to simply shrink "DC" to a much smaller footprint that excludes residential areas, and cede those portions back to Maryland.
They already have a rep in the House that can sit on committees and such, but is ineligible to cast floor votes. I don't know if there is a Constitutional way to simply allow that person full voting rights as a compromise. I'd also be open to that.
I mean Rhode Island is basically a single city.
Current states had all sorts of exceptions when they were added to the union. Wyoming and West Virginia come to mind. One didnt have the necessary amount of population, the other was part of another state that was carved off simply because it didn’t like Slavery.
I very much oppose the idea that the power to govern an area should be tied to how much land the area contains rather than the number of people who live in that area.
Rhode Island has over a million residents in it (which nearly doubles between Memorial Day and Labor Day). Rhode Island is small and was basically the leper colony of Quakers because of how much Roger Williams disagreed with the Puritans who founded Plimoth.
I agree. And I agree Wyoming is another ridiculous case.
But I also think we shouldn't keep making the same mistakes and justify them because there are other bad examples out there.
I am all for PR statehood. As I understand it, they have voted in favor of it on the island and I don't really understand what the holdup is with Congress.
Edit:
Only half joking. I'd be okay with demoting Wyoming back to Territory while accepting PR. That way we woulnd't have to adjust all the flags and stuff.
Actually, this has been thrown out there by some uber left talking heads. There's a comparison map out there that shows the how individual counties voted and are colored red or blue based on the 2020 election overlaid with a population density map. The middle of the country and the places that are mentioned above, don't even register on the population density map.
I know the electoral college has been tossed around to be dismantled but it's never going to happen. It needs to be seriously revamped though to be more reflective of a state's actual voting. It's time to dismantle the winner take all stupidity and replace it with a proportionate allocation of electors based on the proportion of a states popular vote. It's time to make candidates actually care about needing to go to states they will lose in the popular vote to get as many votes as possible so the people who vote for them do have their votes count. Example: In OK, I typically vote for the Democratic candidate because I can't stomach voting for racist misogynists like Trump and Stitt. Dem candidates NEVER come to Oklahoma to campaign because they know they're not winning the state, just like Trump didn't go to Massachusetts. So split out the electors based on the % won and give the winner +1. Biden would have still won this past election, maybe a little closer, but more reflective of the national popular vote.
yes, eliminate winner take all. the winner of a district gets 1 ec vote, and the winner of the state gets 2ec votes
We’re not giving rural districts even more power. No thank you. Wagoner county should not have representation in similar proportion to Tulsa county.
It dilutes the power of rural states, though. Think Nebraska, where Biden got 1 EV, and then Maine, where Trump got 1.
It's a mixed bag that way. I think I read somewhere recently that had such a system been in place in all states, that it would not have altered the outcome of the 2016 or the 2020 election. I suppose it is somewhat more representative, but I think the big advantage is in localizing national elections in a better way. I'd like to leave it up to the states, but I wish more states would do it.
It could be argued that smaller or medium sized states do have something to gain by splitting their EVs. If an election is expected to be very close (and they all are these days), then a Nebraska or Maine can attract attention and promises from candidates if they have any competitive congressional districts in relatively cheap and compact media markets. If a candidate is going to lose a state heavily, but can cheaply campaign to try and pick up one or two EVs, he will. That attracts attention and promises from both candidates, even if the state winner is a foregone conclusion. Further, it makes it in the interest of the state to draw in at least a couple of competitive districts instead of making them all lopsided one way or the other. A state that is a foregone conclusion at 9-0 (winner take all, but is reliably 60% Party A) is still a foregone conclusion at 7-2 (where they split but have no competitive districts), and will not get much attention in campaigns.
The really big states will never change unless you force them to, though. Flor example, take Florida. Florida wants people to pay attention to them. Florida is often won by 1-2% of the vote and is a constant battleground for 27 EVs. If the same battleground means the victor gets a 15-12 split in a hugely expensive media market, nobody will care to invest much or promise much to Floridians.
