With all the talk of a Constitutional Convention this year I just wanted to hear what ideas others have as far as what should be changed in our Constitution to make the United States a better place.

The Constitution can be found here:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Constitutional Amendments can be found here:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

I think we will see some VERY interesting ideas on this thread.

When you post:

1. Please use the ACTUAL language you would like to see added to the Constitution (Using BOLD or ITALICS is a good idea).

2. Present an argument as to what your amendment does and why it is needed.

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

Talk of a Constitutional Convention? Whered you hear that? Sounds interesting, if you have any links, id like to see whats up

Hmmm....hard question. There are a lot of things I think need reforming (corporations, THE MEDIA, Lobbyists and how much power they have, and basically cleaning up all of the corruption that is running rampant in this country)

I dont know if any of these would go in the COnstitution (I dont believe so)

But yeah, Tricky White Devil.........this is THE BEST question I have seen in a LONG TIME on this board. VERY thought provoking. Im going to take a day or two to think about this and write a lengthy post. I really wish we had more awesome threads like this!!! Thanks!!!

__________________
www.contraweb.tk
.: Digital Activism for the New Millenium :.

The Proposed Constitutional Ban on "Gay Marriage" would have been a Constitutional Ammendment. I may be wrong on this point but I am under the impression that Ammendments only come from a Constitutional Convention when this takes place all bets are off as far as what will and won't be changed.

Also, I seriously think the US has become such a bitterly partisan place that re-thinking the rules our government is run by may be a VERY good idea. It would offer us all a new chance to re-construct our government with the consent of a super majority.

I have some ideas I will discuss later

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

(Mind you, I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't know the proper wording.) A new amendment, somewhat formatted like this:

By mandate of this amendment, gun ownership is to be banned by the year 2020, with a possible extension to the year 2025 depending on the progression of other mandates of this amendment. This extension on the time limit must be voted on by both houses of Congress. The extension must then be approved by the Supreme Court in order to be put into effect on January 1, 2025.

The 2nd mandate is the creation of an arms collections bureau. The mandate will require people to turn in their arms over the course of a 10 year period. (or 15 in the event of an extension) The government will invest in advertising and campaigning to make sure everyone is aware of the new laws. All arms collected by the department will be recycled or scrapped.

The 3rd mandate instructs what procedures will be put in place after the 10 or 15 year transitional period. The arms collections bureau will continue to do it work, scrapping guns confiscated from criminals. Possesion of a firearm will have a short jail sentence. (I'm not quite sure how long.)

Law enforcement will be required to be able to account for their weapon or face repercussions if weapons go missing. Military use of arms will pretty much be unchanged as this is a civilian law.

The 4th mandate requires the creation of a brick wall blocking the border to Mexico. The wall will do much to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. cutting down on arms dealing and drug trafficing. (I'm not sure about this one. I think it's probably is too brash and would prompt outcry from someone. It would solve the problem of arms dealers from Mexico.)



Now we all know that there is not a chance in hell that this will ever pass. NRA lobbyists have too much influence in Congress, and when the Supreme Court has to vote between giving civil liberties and taking them away, it rarely will take them away. I'm just saying that if I could put anything before the Convention, that would be it.

Read the Constitution.

Nothing you have said makes any sense as far as Constitutional Amendments go.

Banning Firearms would be an issue worthy of Constitutional Amendment but the Supreme Court has nothing to do with this process.

Where have you ever seen any Bureau with a Constitutional Mandate?!?!?!?! There are only 3 branches of government......I'll let you guess what those are.

Law Enforcement Firearm Accountability?!?!?!?!? You must be high!!!

A "Brick" wall along the Mexican Boarder!!!! LOL This could be done tomorrow under our present Constitution!!!!

I think the point to this thread escapes you. This isn't a Legislative Wish-list it's about the balance of power within our government and the specific "Rights" given to each citizen (and sometimes even non-citizens).

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

Any Non-Citizen of the United States, who enters, or remains in, the territory of the United States by unlawful methods will not be granted any of the civil liberties expressed or implied within The Constitution.

Pretty straight forward. If you are an illegal immigrant or outstay your Visa forget about receiving the same rights citizens receive. This opens the door to unimpeded immigration reform legislation.

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

Article 5 of The Constitution discusses Amendments and Conventions

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

Article 3, Section 1 of The Constitution states:

I would like it amended to read:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.

This would make the "Supreme Court" the only judicial body with the ability to declare laws - Un-Constitutional

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

You are wrong here. A constitutional convention is not required for consideration of a proposed amendment. In fact, the reason why constitutional conventions have not been used is the reality, as you pointed out, "when [a constitutional convention] takes place all bets are off as far as what will and won't be changed." Such a convention is how we transitioned from the Articles of Confederation to our present day Constitution. Initially, the delegates claimed they only wanted to fix the Articles of Confederation. They did far more.

The problem with this one is that you woudn't just be making it hard for the inferior federal courts to declare laws unconstitutional, but you would abolish the inferior federal courts. With how backlogged the dockets are now, this probably wouldn't be a good idea. lol

What changes would I like to see? Well, I would use the opportunity to clear up a few things, such as:

1- There is no such thing as a privacy right under the 5th and 14th Amendments. The contention that within the substantive due process clause exists such a "right" is pure fiction. Due process requires only that (1) the laws be properly enacted and that (2) the person aggrieved by the law have an opportunity to challenge the law in court. So, we, as a nation should decide if we want a privacy guarantee in the constitution and, if so, we should add an amendment protecting that right.

This would, once and for all, let the American people decide if we want to allow so-called privacy rights like abortion to be legal and what the parameters would be.

2- We should also do something about the 2nd amendment. Reasonable people on both sides of the gun issue can point to the 2nd amendment and claim that they view has constitutional support. I am one of those who believe that the amendment was enacted in a time when a person tending his farm might have to put down his farming implements and pick up his musket to defend the new country. In my view, the part of the amendment that the NRA highlights (i.e. the right for people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) is conditioned by the first two clauses (i.e. [a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state). And since most people are not in the militia, if one even exists anymore, then the 2nd amendment does not apply to a person who wants to own a gun.

But I have a really intelligent friend who points out the word "security" and believes that the framers were concerned that the government might become corrupt and the people might need guns to protect themselves from the government (if there were no guns, there would is a possibility that the state would not stay "free.")

Well, I have to admit that I can't explain exactly what is protected by the 2nd amendment and neither can anyone else. We would also have to scrap the word "arms" and get specific because when you consider what "arms" can mean today (the "arms race between russia and the US," for example) guaranteeing that people can "keep and bear arms" could make us very nervous. After all, if the 2nd amendment protects "arms" and assault weapons are covered, then why aren't nuclear warheads?

3- We would also have to fix the 1st amendment. The way the Supreme Court has interpreted the 1st amendment has turned from a guarantee to a "helpful suggestion." For example,

a- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

If Congress shall make no law, then I have a few questions:

Q1 - Why did Roy Moore have to take down his 10 Commandments? After all, he isn't a member of congress (or any part of any legislature) and doesn't he has a "free exercise right" to celebrate his faith? When he think of the word "establishment" when applied to religion, isn't it clear that we are talking about (1) laws requiring church attendance, or (2) laws that set up an official state religion, or (3) laws that prefer one religion to another?
If we don't want the Roy Moores of the world to put up his 10 commandments, we have 2 choices: (1) don't vote for him, or (2) change the language to something like:

No government worker may promote religion....

But if the language were changed to that, then we would have have a de facto secular society (although one that is tolerate toward religion).

If we didn't want to go that far, we could be a little more verbose and specifically list what is allowed and what is not:

No government worker may promote religion by:

Q2: Why can't students, on their own accord, institute a moment of prayer before the school day? They certainly are not members of congress and aren't they being denied their free exercise right by being denied the opportunity to pray?

For the record, I am not in favor of posting religious memorabilia or school prayer, but I don't agree that they are prohibited by the first amendment. I think that people who throw religion in everyone's faces are often the most corrupt people, but the first amendment says what it says. We should change society to reflect the laws or change the laws to reflect society.

b- Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech

Congress has enacted many laws abridging the freedom of speech. Instead of artificially creating "exceptions" to the categorical labguage of the 1st amendment, we should rewrite it.

c- Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Ok, then why are their laws requiring permits before a parade can be organized? Why were protestors dispersed from the democratic and republican conventions? Why are protestors not allowed near the president?

The fact is that the 1st amendment speaks in absolute terms and no one has ever taken those absolute terms seriously.

Trust me, I could go on and on about I would needs to be changed, let alone what I would like to see changed. One thing I would like to see added would be:

The right to die with dignity is a personal and private decision. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of a person to end his or her life on his or her own terms.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

I'd like to see the presidential term limit changed to one six year term. I'd rather the president did only his/her job throughout their term rather then spend a year or two trying to get re-elected and raising money for re-election.

While they are at it the requirement for the president to be native born doesn't make sense anymore. (and No this is not about the governator)