A New Constitution?

[Sallow]

How about an old one? It was much better.

The Articles of Confederation - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Typical.

Conservatives lost the big one in the Civil war.

Deal.

My, you are becoming quite the hack these days, aren't you?

Fucking moronic and bullshit statement.

Yet true.

Southern states still fly the Stars and Bars and hold that traitors like Robert E Lee are heroes.

Those are today's conservatives.

And yesterday's too.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubzG1CFi8cs]YouTube - ‪"Sovereignty or Secession" Rally in Austin, Texas‬‏[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Conservatives fought in the civil war Gracie? You need to go back to school.

Yep.

They were the Southern States.

They lost.

Keep up.

Correct. So you're saying Conservatives were in the South? Try Southern DEMOCRATS

And?

They were still conservative.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think it's time we write a new constitution for the USA. Our old one is outdated, and doesn't really apply to our times now. What are your thoughts?

I think you've been listening to CNN too much. Why don't we just become Euro-trash while we're at it.

This Exists: Iceland Rewrites Their Constitution Using Suggestions Through Twitter

by Matt Schneider | 6:15 pm, June 19th, 2011


Fareed Zakaria spoke today on his CNN show about how he was intrigued by Iceland’s decision to throw out their Constitution and create a new governing document for the nation. Even more exciting and unique, was Iceland’s decision to accept suggestions for the new Constitution through social media applications like Twitter and Facebook, from all of its 320,000 citizens.

Zakaria was not only impressed with the transparency of the process, but the willingness to engage in the process at all. By contrast, in America, Zakaria noted “any talk of revising or revisiting the American Constitution is of course seen as heresy.” Yet Zakaria believed our Constitution could use some modernizing, particularly Amendments addressing the Electoral College and the unfairly disproportionate representation of Senators.

The coolest part though is kids in Iceland now have a legitimate excuse to spend all day sitting in front of the computer: they are helping to shape the government and could potentially be a “founding father!”

Iceland New Constitution | Fareed Zakaria | CNN Video | Mediaite

Imagine a bunch of meat-head kids shaping our constitution.

Obama doesn't seem to want to follow it. Why not change it to suit him.

Then the next prez comes along and doesn't want to follow that, so let's change it again.

 

[Antiderivative]

Imagine a bunch of meat-head kids shaping our constitution.

Its called Congress.

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[candycorn]

I'm not for any of that; I am for a clear definition of when our troops can be put into harm's way, expanding election day to election week (or weeks) so that any troubles at the polls are able to be addressed while the elections are still going, the size of the federal budget relative to GDP, making campaign advertising for federal office free of charge to those running to get money out of politics (somewhat)... Big ideals.

I, personally, also would like to see rules written into the document that would do certain things like ensuring a minimum of 6 Presidential debates between all candidates who receive a certain modicum of support--not just democrats and republicans. Two each on Foreign Policy, Domestic Policy, and Domestic Spending. Each series of two debates will have the first one be a standard debate where large circulation media asks questions of the candidates; the second is where each one will ask a question of the others on stage.

NOT ONE of your insightful and creative ideas requires that ANYTHING be done to our Constitution, dear friend. SOME of what you propose can be done without even an act of both houses of Congress, (e.g. simple administrative regulation from FCC for Presidential debate coverage, or changes in voting times by state law, etc)

Hey...thats fine except those laws and acts are changeable quite easily. As any programmer will tell you, 5 minutes spent writing source code can save you hours later making patches. You put it in the Constitution and it stays there (for better or worse) until there is public sentiment to change it. With a country split almost 50/50 on the important matters and nearly 50/50 on whether it is partly cloudy or partly sunny out there (trivial matters); no such amending will ever take place.

I'd be more than willing to accept state law changes but uniformity is key in the cases of the election day becoming an election week for example.

Doing things to the source document also rises above politics. I'm asking for 6 nights of public debate every 4 years. How much you want to bet that the networks would balk at it? I'd take the bet every time. I know the candidates will. Heck, I'm utterly shocked that the Dems and Repubs haven't gotten together to have a kid's debate yet where third graders ask questions...not because they value the input of 10 year olds but because they don't want someone like Tim Russert questioning them.

Sidebar: Could you imagine what Tim Russert would have done to Palin?

Anyway, the output from Washington isn't meeting the needs of the country. I think the intentionally loose constitution is one reason. Tighten it up and you'll get better ROI from your tax dollars.

 

[candycorn]

You can write stuff like that into it; For example, the federal budget cannot exceed X percentage of GDP unless there is a declaration of war or disaster. Its not that hard.

The ambiguity was part of the strength; you're right about that. And it could be once more if the best interests of the country were still put above politics. Politics now rules the day in Washington. I think it always has but there was a time that when push came to shove, they did what was right. Those days are over. Lyndon Johnson famously commented that the CRA of 1964 would mean losing the south. He did it anyway. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see that sort of risk any longer.

Right now, the budget can be any sort of irresponsible number. Whether or not someone spends 2 billion or 25 billion on campaigns is totally up to them and their banker. Nothing prevents--in the Constitution--the Supreme Court from being expanded to twice it's size...or 5 times its size. I think we can all agree that 9 works well--why not write that in?

Theres no guarantee to privacy in the Constitution; if the government wanted to subpoena your Netflix que...it could. No problemo. What about your voting record? Nothing in the document prevents it.

I'm not sure what precisely you find deficient in the current US Constitution so that you want to propose prohibition style regulations upon the people of the nation. Some of your issues seem to be problems you find with how the nation is confronted with challenges (budgetary, military, threats to national security, threats to the economy,etc.)

I'm not sure what you mean by prohibition-style regulations.

Let me give you an example. The amendments to the Constitution...no President should serve more than 2 terms or 10 years. When Bush was leaving office, nobody suggested he stay but when it was Reagan...I think Reagan may have well gotten 30+ percent of the vote if he were on the ballot next to Bush and Dukakis. But nobody seriously suggested he run in opposition to the 22nd Amendment. Gore won the popular vote. Yet even he admitted that it is the Electoral College that determines the President. Nobody seriously suggested that he challenge the 12th amendment.

Of course you can't challenge constitutional amendments but neither man sought to create a movement that would either. Such movements can work where as the legal challenges cannot.

My point is that if it is in the document, it is elevated above politics. And since the practitioners of the law are now vehemently partisan and compromise is something a loser does; we need to elevate the rules above the silly pig-headed morons who now sit in the seats of power on both sides.

There will be an election soon where there a no debates. How's that sit with you? One guy/gal will be so far ahead that there is no reason for him/her to debate and open themselves up to gaffes. Since there are no rules, anything goes. Since both parties do it, everybody is guilty and nobody can hold anybody to account. I would prefer a law that is so ingrained in the country that whoever is nominated from their parties or seeks the office of President as an independent knows full well, they'd better saddle up for 6 debates. Or 4. Or 8. Something that will give us a clear head to head comparison of the KSA's of the men and women seeking office.


Congress can spend what it wants on anything it wants regardless of red ink. There are no rules to stop them. We have elections and you see how ineffective they are. Do I think that the 112th congress is staffed top to bottom with morons and criminals. No. But the problems they face are so stupendous due to abuses by both parties, the solutions are not politically appetizing. So nothing gets done. And nothing will get done.

Until there is a crash. Then the private sector acts. Houses are foreclosed; credit extended dries up overnight; and the stock market plunges. Your investments? Wiped out in seconds.

Then you'll see our "leaders" point more fingers at who is to blame. We bring in new practitioners and in no time flat the system is once again gamed to give a little more to the campaign contributors or to home districts or to special interests. And we're right back where we started.

Change the rules and you don't have to worry about this.

All of these challenges require actions of thoughtful wise, well-informed men and women, acting within a responsible adult democratic republic. Nothing added on a piece of paper we call the Constitution will solve problems and conquer the challenges we now face.

I disagree completely.

At work, we had a committee that used to organize the Christmas Party, Company Picnic, and some other events through out the year. Nobody was embezzling money but there were about 40-50 dollars that turned up missing one day. Opinions vary as to what happened to it because we can't agree what was in the kitty before the shortfall was experienced.

So we put in rules that have 2 people responsible for signing checks written by the committee. Guess what, in 10 years, every dime has been accounted for.

New rules solve problems all the time.

One rule I'd like to see is budgeting be tied to the GDP. The percentage of which is the question and there is room for debate on that.

I'd also like to see rules that lengthen the election day to election week for example. If you're polling place mysteriously shuts down early...you call the election board and can be directed somewhere else while they investigate. Simple.

As for your fears regarding our privacy rights, I find more destructive actions done by Congress and the former President in the last 10 years, all allegedly to "enhance" our security, but all really having an unintended consequence of stripping away our privacy. Yet again, this stripping away was done without changes to the Constitution, and they can be reversed by the actions of the very same legislature and executive branch, much MORE EASILY THAN through a cumbersome and complex Constitutional amendment process.

Look only as far back as the 1970's and the Equal Rights Amendment process, as to how THAT rather SIMPLE attempt to ensure our rights ...failed to be enacted.

Not sure what any of that has to do with what I'm proposing but okay...

Change the rules and you don't have to worry about some moron from a safe district in SE Iowa elevating to the Ways and Means chair and mis-using your monies to make SE Iowa look like Versailles.

 

[Antiderivative]

People own themselves. Why do we need a new Constitution over this? Yet to Israel.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There's nothing wrong with our constitution. There's alot wrong with politicians. Seriously, how could anyone even entertain the idea of letting the miscreants running the show today write a new constitution.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure what any of that has to do with what I'm proposing but okay...

Change the rules and you don't have to worry about some moron from a safe district in SE Iowa elevating to the Ways and Means chair and mis-using your monies to make SE Iowa look like Versailles.

You missed the major point.

None of your fantasies to "Change the rules" involve Constitutional issues. They involve the proper use wise people can make of the Constitution we already have.

Changing the Constitution won't make morons go away. Only well-informed people voting will do that.

I never said it would; never...not once.

In fact, this was from my last post:

Then you'll see our "leaders" point more fingers at who is to blame. We bring in new practitioners and in no time flat the system is once again gamed to give a little more to the campaign contributors or to home districts or to special interests. And we're right back where we started.

Change the rules and you don't have to worry about this.

I don't ask that you agree with me but I do ask that you at least look at what I write.

I'm a logistician; I'm certified in the art of logistics if you want to call what I have a certification and what I do an art. I can tell you how many patients my hospitals can see in various conditions; where to route patients for optimum care, and almost down to the cylinder, how many cubic feet of medical oxygen we'll use in a month. I'm good at what I do.

I am not allowed to take X-Rays. We have people who are certified to do that.

I'm sure you'll get no argument from many that if I were to try to run the X-ray dew-hickey I'd be a moron. We have rules that prevent morons like me from running the X-ray machine. But we also have rules in place that keep X-Ray techs from having "blonde moments" where they can injure patients. The machines have safe-guards too. The rules, if you will, were changed to prevent damage.

Right now the constitution has no rules that prevent damage. Back when we had public spirited politicians, we could count on some self-policing from the group or even from the "moron". We don't have that any more. So we need to beef up the rules.

 

[candycorn]

There's nothing wrong with our constitution. There's alot wrong with politicians. Seriously, how could anyone even entertain the idea of letting the miscreants running the show today write a new constitution.

Never said we'd have Congress writing the new rules. Thats a bad idea. Need non political people to fix politics.

 

[grunt11b]

I think it's time we write a new constitution for the USA. Our old one is outdated, and doesn't really apply to our times now. What are your thoughts?

You're a dumbass, that is my thoughts.

The law of this land always applies, and no it's not a living breathing document, it's a piece of paper. If you do not like what it says tell your politicians to amend it, other then that it's fine the way it is.

 

[grunt11b]

I can see it now, a new constitution, written by communists in office right now. Some people on here are just begging for abuse. Some people on here apparently want government to hold their tiny hands and tell them what to do from dusk until dawn. Some people on here need shot in the head to protect the rest of us from their ignorance.

 

[grunt11b]

I think it's time we write a new constitution for the USA. Our old one is outdated, and doesn't really apply to our times now. What are your thoughts?

OH BOY!! THIS will be a fun thread!

I'm waiting for someone to strike down the right to free speech, assembly and the right to vote for certain people of a certain background.

Counting down to the first post that does that in ten, nine, eight, seven.....

I'm not for any of that; I am for a clear definition of when our troops can be put into harm's way, expanding election day to election week (or weeks) so that any troubles at the polls are able to be addressed while the elections are still going, the size of the federal budget relative to GDP, making campaign advertising for federal office free of charge to those running to get money out of politics (somewhat)... Big ideals.

I, personally, also would like to see rules written into the document that would do certain things like ensuring a minimum of 6 Presidential debates between all candidates who receive a certain modicum of support--not just democrats and republicans. Two each on Foreign Policy, Domestic Policy, and Domestic Spending. Each series of two debates will have the first one be a standard debate where large circulation media asks questions of the candidates; the second is where each one will ask a question of the others on stage.

I would also like to see said debates be done fairly, not like in 2008 where the better of the GOP candidates where not even allowed to answer a question and instead where given only the option to answer "Yes or no". "Fred Thompson".
And also not have a partisan left wing hack moderating the GOP debates like in 2008.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There's nothing wrong with our constitution. There's alot wrong with politicians. Seriously, how could anyone even entertain the idea of letting the miscreants running the show today write a new constitution.

Never said we'd have Congress writing the new rules. Thats a bad idea. Need non political people to fix politics.

I don't even agree with that because the people today never had to endure the hardships of fighting a revolutionary war against the most powerful empire of the world at the time.

 

[grunt11b]

OH BOY!! THIS will be a fun thread!

I'm waiting for someone to strike down the right to free speech, assembly and the right to vote for certain people of a certain background.

Counting down to the first post that does that in ten, nine, eight, seven.....

I'm not for any of that; I am for a clear definition of when our troops can be put into harm's way, expanding election day to election week (or weeks) so that any troubles at the polls are able to be addressed while the elections are still going, the size of the federal budget relative to GDP, making campaign advertising for federal office free of charge to those running to get money out of politics (somewhat)... Big ideals.

I, personally, also would like to see rules written into the document that would do certain things like ensuring a minimum of 6 Presidential debates between all candidates who receive a certain modicum of support--not just democrats and republicans. Two each on Foreign Policy, Domestic Policy, and Domestic Spending. Each series of two debates will have the first one be a standard debate where large circulation media asks questions of the candidates; the second is where each one will ask a question of the others on stage.

The ambiguity of the constitution is part of its strength. You are asking for a strict written set of rules/laws that leave no room to grow or for emergencies/disasters.

It sure as hell did not prevent the disaster of November 2nd 2008.

 

[Sallow]

I can see it now, a new constitution, written by communists in office right now. Some people on here are just begging for abuse. Some people on here apparently want government to hold their tiny hands and tell them what to do from dusk until dawn. Some people on here need shot in the head to protect the rest of us from their ignorance.

Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Michele Bachmann are communists? Naw.

Socialists..yes..but certainly not communist.

They want Socialism for the wealthy..

 

[Sallow]

I'm not for any of that; I am for a clear definition of when our troops can be put into harm's way, expanding election day to election week (or weeks) so that any troubles at the polls are able to be addressed while the elections are still going, the size of the federal budget relative to GDP, making campaign advertising for federal office free of charge to those running to get money out of politics (somewhat)... Big ideals.

I, personally, also would like to see rules written into the document that would do certain things like ensuring a minimum of 6 Presidential debates between all candidates who receive a certain modicum of support--not just democrats and republicans. Two each on Foreign Policy, Domestic Policy, and Domestic Spending. Each series of two debates will have the first one be a standard debate where large circulation media asks questions of the candidates; the second is where each one will ask a question of the others on stage.

The ambiguity of the constitution is part of its strength. You are asking for a strict written set of rules/laws that leave no room to grow or for emergencies/disasters.

It sure as hell did not prevent the disaster of November 2nd 2008.

You've got the dates wrong. 9/11 and Katrina were disasters who's architects counted themselves as Conservatives.

 

[grunt11b]

I doubt if smash is serious but I bet the topic comes up in a lot of liberal cocktail parties. God help this Country if we ever consider such a thing.

It may be fun to talk about, but it would never happen, this in itself would be a total amendment to the document itself, Don't forget that 2/3 states could request a meeting to consider the proposed amendments. It's an alternative to the 2/3 majority of Congress, but 3/4 of the states have to approve the proposed amendment(s). I just dont see that happening.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The ambiguity of the constitution is part of its strength. You are asking for a strict written set of rules/laws that leave no room to grow or for emergencies/disasters.

It sure as hell did not prevent the disaster of November 2nd 2008.

You've got the dates wrong. 9/11 and Katrina were disasters who's architects counted themselves as Conservatives.

What does that even mean? 9/11 was terrorism and Katrina was a natural disaster.

 

[grunt11b]

I disagree; the practitioners of government (politicians if you will) were once public spirited and placed that spirit above politics. That spirit is dead. So every loophole is exploited.

While I totally agree with your statement...the problem isn't the Constitution...it's the politicians that need changing.

I disagree.

Let me tell you why.

So we replace all of the current 538 congressional members with new ones; the rules that lead to the abuses in the first place are still there. Change the rules and the abuses go away.

Filling 538 jobs will probably yield at lest 53 to 106 (10-20 percent) that are on the take; either overtly or in the shadows.

The President will still be able to send troops anywhere he wants without anyone's approval.

The Congress can still spend whatever it wants

I disagree with you, impeachment and jail time always worked fine when it was enforced.