PDA

View Full Version : Do we need a 2nd constitutional convention?




tomcat
10-22-2007, 04:46 PM
According to Larry Sabato, famed politico and professor at the University of Virginia, yes. He has written a new book called "A More Perfect Constitution," with 23 changes he would like to make:


Congress:
1. Expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative: Grant the 10 most populous states 2 additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states 1 additional Senator, and the District of Columbia 1 Senator.

2. Appoint all former Presidents and Vice Presidents to the new office of “National Senator.”

3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.

4. Lengthen House terms to 3 years (from 2) and set Senate terms to coincide with all Presidential elections, so the entire House and Senate would be elected at the same time as the President.

5. Expand the size of the House to approximately 1,000 members (from current 435), so House members can be closer to their constituents, and to level the playing field in House elections.

6. Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders’ principle of frequent rotation in office.

7. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.

8. Create a Continuity of Government procedure to provide for replacement Senators and Congresspeople in the event of extensive deaths or incapacitation.



Presidency:
9. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term with the option for the President to seek 2 additional years in an up/down referendum of the American people.

10. Limit some Presidential war-making powers and expand Congress’s oversight of war-making.

11. Give the President a line-item veto.

12. Allow men and women not born in the U.S. to run for President or Vice President after having been a citizen for 20 years.



Supreme Court:
13. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges in favor of non-renewable 15-year terms for all federal judges.

14. Grant Congress the power to set a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges.

15. Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.

16. Give federal judges guaranteed cost of living increases so pay is never an issue.



Politics:
17. Write a new constitutional article specifically for the politics of the American system.

18. Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system, over 4 months, for Presidential party nominations to avoid the destructive front-loading of primaries.

19. Mend the Electoral College by granting more populated states additional electors, to preserve the benefits of the College while minimizing the chances a President will win without a majority of the popular vote.

20. Reform campaign financing by preventing wealthy candidates from financing their campaigns, and by mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.

21. Adopt an automatic registration system for all qualified American citizens to guarantee their right to vote is not abridged by bureaucratic requirements.



Universal National Service:
22. Create a Constitutional requirement that all able-bodied young Americans devote at least 2 years of their lives in service to the country.



National Constitutional Convention:
23. Convene a new Constitutional Convention using the state-based mechanism left to us by the Framers in the current Constitution.

Here is his website: http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/index.htm

What do you guys think? Have any of you read this book? There seem to be plenty of people here interested in the constitution of the United States, so I figured I'd ask for opinions (backed up with evidence would be nice!)

Grandson of Liberty
10-22-2007, 04:47 PM
alot of it sounds rather goofy to me.

tomcat
10-22-2007, 04:49 PM
Any reasons as to why it sounds goofy? Can you tell me more, or is that it? :confused:

angelatc
10-22-2007, 04:51 PM
We don't need more Senators unless we get more states. Giving the more populous areas more representation sort of defeats the purpose.

All his ideas sound rather neoconnish to me.

tomcat
10-22-2007, 04:53 PM
We don't need more Senators unless we get more states. Giving the more populous areas more representation sort of defeats the purpose.

All his ideas sound rather neoconnish to me.

"10. Limit some Presidential war-making powers and expand Congress’s oversight of war-making."

Yea, that sounds real neocon-ish to me... :rolleyes:

werdd
10-22-2007, 04:59 PM
what good is a new constitution gonna do when the people in washington cant even follow the one we got already. IF we followed the constitution now, we wouldnt be here, and we wouldnt need Ron Paul. Unfortunately everyone in washington pisses their name on the constitution everyday.

fj45lvr
10-22-2007, 05:06 PM
what good is a new constitution gonna do when the people in washington cant even follow the one we got already. IF we followed the constitution now, we wouldnt be here, and we wouldnt need Ron Paul. Unfortunately everyone in washington pisses their name on the constitution everyday.

yes!!! right on.


It wouldn't be a bad idea for a convention to disband the union though....your odds would improve that out of 50 you could find one sovereign that has its act together....the convention doesn't have to be about a "new" constitution at all.

Triton
10-22-2007, 05:43 PM
None of that makes much sense to me.

First of all, think about who would be voting for amendments. Do you REALLY want those clowns monkeying around with the Constitution?

The Senate can only be fixed by returning it to it's formerly appointed status. The House was the only part of the Federal government designed to be a democracy. I learned about this in elementary school: the original plan was a geodesic, combining the strengths of three different types of goverment: the Democracy (the House), the Oligarchy (the Senate) and the Monarchy (the President). The strengths of each (hopefully) nullify the weaknesses of each.

When the XVIIth Amendment was ratified, this "three legged stool" lost one of it's legs, and the imbalance has led to the current sorry state of affairs.

I do support expanding the house, but I do not support term limits of any type.

bbachtung
10-22-2007, 06:47 PM
Here are some reasons why this guy is nuts:

He wants to enslave all young Americans via "national service."

He wants to eliminate your right to spend your money on your own campaign via a limitation on how "wealthy" people can fund their campaigns.

He wants to force everyone to be part of a national database that requires them to be registered to vote.

Original_Intent
10-22-2007, 07:09 PM
Not only that, but we have a method for adding amendments to our current Constitution.

Problems:

1. Even if you agreed with every single thing this guy wants, having a Constitutional Convention does not mean that is what is going to happen.
I mean, anyone can sit down and make a Constitution wish list, but what makes you think whoever did it would listen to you.

2. Somewhat addressed in 1. You have no freaking clue what is going to come out the other side of a CC.

american.swan
10-22-2007, 07:50 PM
what good is a new constitution gonna do when the people in washington cant even follow the one we got already. IF we followed the constitution now, we wouldnt be here, and we wouldnt need Ron Paul. Unfortunately everyone in washington pisses their name on the constitution everyday.

I agree except a few odds and ends. Like the election process. Vote counting is viewable to the public. Everyone is automatically a voter.