Which changes would you like to see made to the constitution?

[ddbaj]

Now, I'm not going to put all of my pet issues here, just some basic changes I think our constitution needs.

-President elected by national popular vote.

-A person can only serve 12 years in either house of congress.

-Supreme Court Justices must retire after 15 years of service.

-Federal elections will be publicly funded and will last three days. Paper ballots must be used.

And one that may or may not be popular:

-Run off voting on any federal election in which a candidate fails to get more than 50% of the vote.

Any thoughts, DU?

[sal paradise]

1. I agree with all of those...

And there are a few parts of the Constitution that I think need further clarification, ie, right to bear arms etc.

[ddbaj]

5. Very true!

But that would create quite the shitstorm O__O

[fishwax]

42. Welcome to DU

love the avatar and the screen name.

:hi:

[Dora]

2. I'd like to see NO amendments limiting the rights of people.

If people can love, then they can damn well get married, even if they both use the same public restroom.

[evilgenius602]

3. term limits never work

you just get a permanent second tier of "Staff".

[charlyvi]

50. True. Besides, we already have term limits.

They're called elections.

[Richard Steele]

67. I agree. I could support the other ideas in the OP, but not those 2.

And, BTW, welcome to DU!

[peace13]

4. I would settle for getting the rights back

that I've lost in the past six years. After that we can talk. Peace, Kim

[sal paradise]

6. I thought of another

For a while I have believed that elections should have a spending limit, a low one at that, so that the playing field would be leveled, giving non-incumbent and middle class citizens a fair chance.

[beth9999]

7. How about....

... making conservatism illegal. :D

[nosmokes]

8. how about *using* it? n/t

[wuushew]

9. I disagree with the popular vote for POTUS

I feel that each state should take its popular vote for each candidate and multiply it by its relative electoral representation. The resulting fractional number would eliminate the possibility of a tie and eliminate campaigning only in swing states. The Great Compromise would still be in effect.

[MrCoffee]

12. Did you come up with that idea?

I've never heard it before, but I like it.

[beth9999]

10. Seriously, however.

-President elected by national popular vote.

Can't argue with that one.

-A person can only serve 12 years in either house of congress.

I'm not in favor of term limits. Personally, I think that people should be free to elect whomever they choose to. Artifically barring a person on the basis of past service is wrong, IMHO.

-Supreme Court Justices must retire after 15 years of service.

Why? I think that having judges in for life is good for the continuity of the court.

-Federal elections will be publicly funded and will last three days. Paper ballots must be used.

Agree with the last part, but not with the first. By making elections publicly funded only, you are, in effect, taking away the rights of people to state their opinions. I think that election reform is needed in the U.S., but stifling public expression (including McCain-Feingold) is not the way to do it.

-Run off voting on any federal election in which a candidate fails to get more than 50% of the vote.

I can live with this one.

[kiahzero]

17. Money shouldn't be speech

People are free to throw their support behind a candidate; they just would no longer get a larger "say" than others if they happen to be filthy rich.

[flyingfysh]

11. national popular vote has a problem

Suppose, for example, that one state is thoroughly corrupted by Diebold-type shenanigans. Then they can sway electoral votes any way they want - but only up to the total electoral votes of the state. With popular votes, their shenanigans could outweigh the results of honest voting in all other states without limit. In a way, the electoral college process acts as a "firewall" against corrupting the entire count.

[wuushew]

25. Many states have laws governing the votes of electoral deligates

historically the corruption of handfull of men has been a bigger problem than the manipulation of an entire state.

[Sapere aude]

13. Only the ERA

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. ERA, I agree.

Everything else can be done through legislation.

[loyalsister]

29. Yep

Limitations should be legislated.
BUT
Absolutely NO to term limits.
Turning congress into a step on a career ladder turns lobbyists into headhunters.

[Auggie]

14. How about:

- Members of Congress cannot accept gifts, meals or travel of any kind from lobbyists.
- Establish a separate watchdog agency to police Congressional ethics.

[Benhurst]

15. The Constitution has been rendered little more than a dead letter

by The Patriot Act and other treasonous legislation and Presidential decrees. Until it is restored, modifications seem senseless.

[EconomicsProfessor]

35. Patriot Act

How is the Patriot Act considered treasonous? I thought its passage was almost unanimous.

[Benhurst]

46. By a Congress which wasn't given enough time to read it.

It is a direct assault on the Constitution.

It is a fascist act with an Orwellian name.

[laylah]

48. Feingold FOUND the time

to read it, unlike anyone else who signed onto it. That said, I agree with your further assessment.

Jenn

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Read it then we can talk

[BlackVelvet04]

16. None. n/t

[RB TexLa]

20. agreed

[BlackVelvet04]

23. Oh my.....

I'm really not used to that. ;-)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Mandatory marijuana smoking.

Just like the founding fathers intended.

[sinkingfeeling]

21. ERA and no others.

[Ellis Wyatt]

22. Agree with most

I actually prefer the electoral college, as I tend to support most decisions going back to individual states. The "popular vote" would result in every politician only campaigning in about 5 cities in the country.

The way it is, imperfect as it is, still forces the candidates to go across the country and interact with everyone.

Agree with the term limits - it would be great, though I wouldn't mind if someone served 12 years in the house, and then 12 years in the senate. I believe the founders intended people to cycle through, not be in government for 60 years.

I don't see why supreme court justices should be removed after 15 years. I'm not against it per se, just don't really see the need (sure, you may force out bad judges, but you also force out good ones - and I'm an optimist) But I could possibly be talked into it.

Federal elections, I can see that, but I still prefer electronic machines - just have an independant arm to run the elections and validate the results - not the local counties. Paper ballots are just as easy to tamper with (if not easier) and it doesn't scale.

Run off - nope. It further marginalizes 3rd party candidates, which will just end up having the republican democrats become more homogenous in their messages.

This is a good thread. I'd have to really peruse the document to see what I'd like changed. They did a pretty bang-up job as it is.

[wuushew]

28. Proportional voting would eliminate the problem you cite

n/t

[Ellis Wyatt]

34. yeah

I noticed you mention that earlier in this thread. I hadn't thought of it. It's a good idea. I'd support that.

But it would still not prevent instances where someone could get less overall votes and still win president (which I don't mind - but some do)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. People who say that popular vote would take away power from the states or

allow candidates to win in just five cities are not thinking clearly.

Their minds are still halfway into the electoral college mindset, with its "winner take all" system. It's as if they haven't grasped two basic concepts;

1) Votes are cast by individuals, not by blocs of territory
2) No bloc of territory is 100% one party or another
3) Not all small states are alike. What do North Dakota and Hawaii have in common? What about Vermont and Wyoming?

Under the current system, candidates concentrate their efforts in a few large swing states. They know that Utah will go Republican and Massachusetts will go Democratic. But what happens to Republicans in Massachusetts or Democrats in Utah? The Electoral College makes their presidential votes absolutely meaningless.

With a direct popular vote, every vote in every state is important.

The "five cities" you're talking about are a myth. Even New York and Chicago and Dallas and Orange County are not solidly for one party or another. There are Republicans in NY and Chicago and Democrats in Dallas and Orange County.

The current system allows the winner to be called before everyone in the country has had a chance to vote. A few large Eastern and Midwestern states can have all their electoral votes spoken for before people in Alaska and Hawaii have even gotten off work.

Under a pure popular vote, 1) a close election would remain undecided until the last person in Hawaii and Alaska had voted. 2) Votes in North Dakota would count as much as votes in New York, 3) Candidates would have to visit every state in the union, because they would know that any individual could potentially cast a vote that helped put them over the top.

We elect governors by popular vote instead of having each county cast one vote. The Electoral College is a remnant of eighteenth century snobbery, a holdover from the days when only white, male property owners could vote. It was set up LITERALLY because the Founding Fathers thought that people were too stupid to be trusted with voting for president, and originally, the electors cast their vote without reference to any popular vote.

[suston96]

24. No term limits...

That's dumbing down the voters, telling them they cannot be trusted, telling them that they must be prevented from voting for the wrong kind of people.

Would you fire neurosurgeons after 12 years on the job? Architects? Lawyers? (Uh, skip that one).

We have been expanding voting and election rights and we have people trying to shrink the candidate pool, thereby keeping citizens from voting for candidates of their choice.

Next, I would like to see the Constitution rescind the "Times, Places, and Manner of Elections" clause. That would relieve the states of their out of control and corrupted election supervision. Federal elections must be federalized and ALL elections must be by paper ballot.

I have more but those will do for now.

[William769]

26. None.

[Minnesota_Lib]

27. Rewording the 14th Amendment so it cannot possibly be interperted as granting....

.."personhood" to corporations and then moving to reverse the 1886 a Supreme Court decision that did just that.

Dumping the electoral college would be high on my list as well.

[jgraz]

30. Wordy McWorderson

[Auggie]

45. Oh yes!

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Bingo to your first one. n/t

[leftofthedial]

31. publicly funded elections

elimination of all non-public political contributions


other than that, I'd just like to see it put back into effect.

[jgraz]

32. No term limits, just honest elections and districts

I'd prefer to see the 22nd amendment repealed. Just let the voters decided who represents them.

I would however, like to see the Supreme Court Justices "reaffirmed" by popular vote every 10 (or 12 or whatever) years. Just a YES or NO vote.

[Cleita]

33. Your points work for me, but I would like to see runoff voting

used in all elections. It's the only way you really can know who the most popular candidate is and still allow for multiple party votes in a two party system.

[mentalsolstice]

36. Amend it so the president can't use it to wipe his ass!

All the suggestions are worthy, but I think term limits should be considered by the states. Federal judges should serve limited terms, and those terms should be staggered so that no one president can stack the court. As one whose vote hasn't counted for anything in years, I like the idea of a popular vote. Paper vote balloting and three days elections are goos, and one of those days should fall on the weekend.

[SaveElmer]

37. Agree with 1 and 4...

Disagree with the rest...I am not in favor of any type of term limitation, and I believe a life appointment to the Supreme Court is the best way to remove it as much as possible from partisan political currents.

Also am not in favor of paper ballots...electronic is fine as long as there is a verifiable paper trail.

Would also like to see some form of amendment explicitly guaranteeing a right to privacy. Not sure how this would be worded or if it is even possible, but an attempt should be made

[Squatch]

38. Disambiguation of the 2nd Amendment.

The right of individual citizens to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed.

[Ksec]

39. Id like to see corporations lose their "people" status

I dont know if that rule is in there but it shouldnt be if it is.

[KingFlorez]

40. Terms limits don't work

[XOKCowboy]

68. Give a reason please?

I'd prefer all non-career politicians in my government but I'm a member of the "vote out the incumbent" contingent.

[LSK]

41. Standardized elections with paper ballots

[mentalsolstice]

43. Additional way to remove the POTUS, et al.

In addition to articles of impeachment, we should have recall ballots and early election if it's the will of the people.

[LeftCoast]

44. Term limits do nothing but empower lobbyists

Now if you fix gerrymandering and count ALL the votes, what's wrong with allowing citizens to elect whoever they want. Personally, I want a an experienced Congress-critter!

[mondo joe]

47. Pres by popular vote; add sexual orientation and gender to 15th amendment;

no term limits; constitutional rights are for people, not corporations.

[me b zola]

49. Article I section 2

(3) Representatives and direct taxes shall be apprortioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective members, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.

[tritsofme]

58. Um, the 14th amendment fixed that.

Surely you don't think blacks are still counted as 3/5 of a person?

[me b zola]

59. Surely you don't believe that beating your wife is a good thing...

...


:eyes:

[tritsofme]

62. Well then what's the point of bringing up a section of the constitution

that has been repealed for 138 years?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Replace the present tri-partite system with a parliamentary system.

Agree with the rest with the exception of term-limits.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. Parliamentary systems are one-party control

Here in Japan, one party (with its little cousin) has controlled everything for most of the past 50 years. And the only people who have any say in who their national leader is, are the voters who live in the ruling party leader's district.

[misternormal]

52. To start with...

...Let's make sure the existing constiution is upheld... Then we can worry about changes...

*Co has fucked it up enough... I think we need to get it up and running again first... Just My opinion.

[Realityhack]

54. Ok I'll go. How about:

Separation of church and state. No really we mean it this time.
Privacy from the government and protection against unlawful search and seizure - No really we mean it this time.
Ratified international treaties are the highest law of the land with the exception of the constitution - No really we mean it this time.
Copyrights may be granted for a LIMITED time period - No really we mean it this time.

Could also add some stuff about limits on corporations, clarification of the right to bear arms (no nukes for Buba), proportional voting, perhaps thin out the number of people in the house of reps some (not sure about that but it seems unwieldy), etc. But those 4 would be a good start.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Some that no one has mentioned:

1. No American military forces could be sent overseas for combat, peacekeeping, or training other countries' forces without a 2/3 vote of Congress specifically authorizing that action and only that action. If such a vote passed, the children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews of the Congresscritters who voted for the measure and of the president and Cabinet would be drafted. Any president who sent troops overseas without such an authorization or who commanded the mission to extend beyond its original boundaries without Congressional approval would be subject to impeachment. Only a formal declaration of war on a specific country would permit unlimited military action.

2. All bills introduced in Congress must deal with one subject and one subject only. (Many states have this rule.) For example, you can't sneak a special tax break for your brother-in-law's corporation into the bill authorizing funding for the national parks.

3. No Congressional Representative or Senator may accept any money or in-kind gifts or benefits from any lobbyist.

4. "Person" should be defined as an individual human being, not an abstract body such as a corporation or a nonprofit organization.

[Hawkowl]

61. Anti-War Profit Amendment

I would like to see an amendment that would prohibit any company or person from making ANY profit at all on a war. Defense companies would be able to make profit during peacetime, but ONLY during peacetime. Once hostilities begin all dividends and profits stop and all defense employees salaries are strictly controlled. The highest salary any defense employee could make would be equivalent to a 4 star general.

This in my opinion, would stop virtually all wars in their tracks. For good measure I would like the Defense Department properly renamed as the War Department. This would solve the "democrats are soft on defense!" issue.

[Target_For_Exterm]

63. I don't want to see any changes made to the Constitution.

I'm touchy about that. Except for obviously stupid stuff like racism, I think the foundation of our country should be left alone. Tampering with it is too tempting for power mad people like Bush and Cheney, and making a practice of hacking away at the Constitution encourages them to rewrite it to suit themselves.

I say if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

[557188]

64. Equal Rights amendment

The 14th amendment SHOULD cover this, and does, but this amendment would prevent fascist jackasses from trying to argue absurd notions of levels of scrutiny.

But Americans like taking rights away from people based on physical differences. Pathetic that this is the 21st century and a lot of people still act like it's the 12th century.

[BlooInBloo]

65. The people, the corporation, and the media *explicitly* named....

... as branches of government, with specific and substantial rights and responsibilities, and inheriting separation of powers protections.

An explicit requirement of equal rights for women and gay folks.

All elections must be performed in a verifiable manner.

That's all I'd probably do the the Constitution.

I specifically don't like the idea of limiting the people's right to choose their own leaders. The problem isn't that the people have too many choices, rather the problem is that they're too stupid and bigoted to make *good* choices. That problem will persist through a shrinking of the field of possible candidates. We need smarter voters, not a smaller candidate field.

[RoyGBiv]

66. None ...

I want the one we have actually enforced.

FWIW, some of your suggestions strike at the concept of federalism and thus undermine the basis of the Constitution itself. While I would like to see many of those things, I would prefer they be introduced at a level intended by the actual Constitution.

OnEdit: I take that back. I would like to see the ERA become an official amendment.