How Would You Revise It?

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

Several people on this list recently stated that the US Constitution is obsolete and should be overhauled. That brings up an interesting question: how? There are two variations on a legal procedure for proposing amendments, including a constitutional convention ("concon") that hasn't been used in over 200 years. There are calls for amendments from a variety of political standpoints, and arguments for and against the concon method specifically, so this isn't a purely theoretical question.

What would you expect to see from a new convention, or what would you hope to see? Note that the last convention scrapped the existing Articles of Confederation rather than amending them and so was extralegal under the "perpetual" Confederation's rules. Also note that the existing amendment process would require state legislatures' approval, making certain proposals tough to sell. If you support any change, would you try for a set of new amendments, or a new document entirely? What would you do with the states that vote no on a new document, assuming you get the majority or supermajority you need for your chosen process? Would you increase or decrease government power, and would it be more or less centralized? Would you change the method of representation, such as the Electoral College or equal, popularly-elected Senate seats?

Comments

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I don't recall seeing anyone say that but then again I can't keep up with every single comment in this community. However there's no way that enough people would agree on anything to be able to amend the constitution.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I don't recall such a thing either, but it would be curious to read that exchange (in case it ever happened).

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/939298.html was the thread.
I don't want to dig through that whole set of comments again, but for instance: underlankers: "The Constitution is a document of the 18th Century, when what we would today term oligarchy was identified as liberty, and reflects the virtues and failings of that time, but is increasingly inadequate for a 21st Century superpower and attempts to hold to its letter and spirit sound increasingly like [Roman dictator] Lucius Cornelius Sulla or perhaps King Canute." I believe buried in the same thread is an explicit call for a new convention from someone.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Several people on this list recently stated that the US Constitution is obsolete and should be overhauled.

Wait, what? Who did that? Could you link to the place where they did?

Btw, what "list"?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I did, in response to a post of his. To me it's pretty obvious that the Constitution needs *some* adjustment to the 21st Century, the 1790s had a very different conception of things that will kill the USA as a viable state if adhered too for a century or more. We can't have a 21st Century superpower state with a standing army on a 1790s conception of the state and army.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

What I expect from any sort of Constitutional shenanigans would be a strong advocacy of corporate personhood and rights, effectively sealing our fate as a nation. What I would hope for would be a strong rejection of such.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

i agree. people who freely band together for some common cause such as corporations or unions shouldn't be allowed to get away with these shenanigans.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'd want to update the language - make it crystal clear what the general welfare clause means, what the commerce clause is about, how the second amendment operates. I'd also look to make sure the powers listed are not always implied to be only the purview of the government, such as post offices.

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

Sounds good. I look to the Federalist Papers for their explanation of the first two of those, but it's obvious that some people now really, really disagree with Madison, Jay and even relatively-pro-big-government Hamilton.

Er.....as I remember I'm pretty much the only one who's said something like this once or twice:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

One of the first things on the list would be to pick either Congress or the President as able to run war consistently and stick with that. The new Constitution would also retool the provisions as regards the military to reflect that we now have a standing army and navy, providing rules for what we can and cannot do with them. The new Constitution should also make explicit Separation of Church and State and make certain basic provisions of liberal democracy as non-negotiable as the electoral college and the all-state Senate with 2 Senators to a state is under the current framework.

Congress should also be re-designed on lines that reflect the political reality of the 21st Century.

Re: Er.....as I remember I'm pretty much the only one who's said something like this once or twice:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Some of the most basic non-negotiable aspects of the new Constitution should mandate only the Federal government can raise money, that states must at minimum run an equal exchange with the government for what they take out of it, mandating an income tax (it's not the 18th Century anymore, we can have one sans amendment), mandating that gerrymandering is entirely illegal and an impeachable offense, instituting national requirements for political parties and in fact including the existence of political parties in the system, things like that that reflect what reality did to the Founders' beloved nostra.

Re: Er.....as I remember I'm pretty much the only one who's said something like this once or twice:

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

You might well be, in which case I stand corrected. With so many interesting comments I've gone overboard in attempting to reply to them.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I'm for leaving the Constitution as is. The ability to amend it has functioned well in the past, and the fact that it has been amended so seldom speaks well for it.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Amending the Constitution is one thing but a full blown Constitutional Convention where a wholly new document would be drafted is a horrible idea. The only people who could possibly want that are the tea partiers, since they are likely the only ones whose agenda would be benefited. A Constitutional Convention at this point would only serve to limit, or remove altogether, liberties we currently take for granted. You can certainly say goodbye to birthright citizenship, teapartiers hate that. You can also say goodbye to many of the liberties previously understood to emanate from the 1st Amendment (Freedom to utter unpopular speech, freedom of the press, separation of church and state, freedom of religion for non-Christians, etc...) Completely overhauling the Constitution at this point in history would be a suicide mission for this country. There are only two possible outcomes: Tea Partiers get everything they want and destroy many of our liberties or they only get some of what they want and start a second Civil War.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I think we should give them Alabama and they can make their own new constitution and country.

[404.livejournal.com]

hur hur tea party members are racist hicks, hur hur

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I believe the Constitution's greatest flaw is its lack of a clause recognizing our Reptoid lords and masters. Best to get that stuff out in the open once and for all.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I'd get rid of the electoral college, we don't live in an urban-vs.-rural society anymore and there's no need to bypass the popular vote.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I'd restrict the President's ability to dismiss officers appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. I would recognize the administrative state as a quasi-government, and place greater controls over it in the hands of Congress. I would also ratify Chevron deference explicitly, without the procedural requirements. Beware, ye Congresspersons, lest you grant too much interpretive power.

I'd lay baseline rules for Congressional votes, requiring a bare majority in each house to pass any measure. I'd allow for changes to lower this threshold only if approved by both Houses (that is, it could be a Senate-only rule, but the House would still get to vote on it), or bypassing the other house's approval if the initial measure in the affected house obtains a supermajority of the full delegation (not of the quorum). There would be no provision allowing anyone to require a supermajority for anything else.

I'd specify a right to privacy. I'd keep the current warrant requirements as a floor, but allow Congress to raise the minimum standard as it sees fit.

I'd retain the Bill of Rights, but replace the Third Amendment with the substance of Posse Comitatus.

I'd make federal judgeships max out at forty years. No one previously appointed to a federal judgeship shall be allowed to serve again in that role. I'd fix the number of Supreme Court justices. Nine seems fine, but court-packing shouldn't have ever been a viable threat.

I'd specify that the federal government and all of its agents and employees are bound by the Bill of Rights and all other limitations on its power at all times, including at war and abroad. I'd include an agency provision, preventing the government from knowingly supporting or encouraging other organizations or states to accomplish an otherwise-impermissible goal.

I'd create a constitutional right of action and standing provision allowing any citizen to challenge acts of the government solely on constitutional grounds, even absent personal harm.

I'd significantly revamp the legislature. I'd keep the upper house as it basically stands now, and turn the House of Reps into a European-style proportional vote system, with state designations abolished. The Senate is the voice of the states, the House the voice of the nation as a whole. The President would also be popularly elected.

There's probably a bit more, but that's what I'm thinking at the moment. I've got a lot relating to courts and rights-enforcement, but it's what I've been thinking about recently.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

A quick addendum to the second paragraph: Congress can only lower its voting threshold on internal procedural elements. Acts of Congress must be approved by a majority, no exceptions.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Right to velociraptors should be enshrined in the constitution.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

... and rabid weasels.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

An amendment calling for a constitutional convention was nearly passed in the 1980s, it fell two states short of passage, and quite a few politicians were nervous about the prospect of passage. The impetus for calling the convention was to force the federal government to balance the budget.

[redheadrat.livejournal.com]

IMHO, there should be a three step process.

1) To create an adjusted set of current principles of society, do away with electoral college, address new universal rights and privileges as well as responsibilities.
2) Amend current constitution to reflect these principles.
3) Write new constitution, true to the old format, but with less amendments and in modern English. By old format I mean to keep the base about government workings, and include the Bill of Rights as amendments.

Step One should work as set of referendums rather than another congressional discussion having little to do with people.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Haven't thought this through too far yet, but I think a lot of the government should probably be organized differently. We've been bolting things on here and there instead of fundamentally altering the way government functions to make everything happen more efficiently.

Note that I am referring only to the organizational side of government, not the principles or laws behind it.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

1) No rule or regulation issued by a Federal Agency which imposes any civil or criminal penalty shall be passed or implemented unless it has been voted on and approved by six tenths of both houses of Congress. Congress shall have 5 years from the passage of this amendment to explicitly vote on all existing federal rules and regulations, any regulations not approved by Congress by that date shall be considered to have been repealed.

2) All laws passed by Congress must indicate exactly which article of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make such a law. In the event the Constitutionality of the law is challenged the Courts, including the Supreme Court may only consider the applicability of the indicated article.

3) Congress is required to provide a balanced budget using the same accounting principals that they require of all citizens and corporations. Congress may not authorize the Treasury to issue debt which exceeds 2% of the prior years Federal revenues in any year or 50% of the prior years Federal revenue in total unless there is an existing Declaration of War or Martial Law.

4) The States may overturn any Federal Law if the legislatures of 2/3rds of the State Legislatures pass bills to do so. If a law is overturned in this manner it shall be treated as if it had been judged unconstitutional.

5) No person who has been elected to Federal office is eligible to be elected to any Federal Office until after the term to which that had originally been elected to is completed.

6)In recognition of the changing technological nature of warfare Congress is hereby authorized to provide for standing military forces as they shall deem necessary. However appropriations for the military shall not exceed 10% of the prior years Federal Revenues and the number of active duty servicemen in all branches shall not exceed 2 tenths of one percent of the total population of the country unless there is a declared state or war or martial law.

7) Military forces of the United States may not be deployed to any location outside of US Territory for more than 24 consecutive months unless there is an existing declaration of war with that State. If there had previously been a declaration of war then US forces may not stay longer than 5 years after the formation of a new government in that country.