What if you had a chance to re-write the Constitution?

I thought this might be a fun topic... If there ever was to be a Con-Con or a chance to get a total re-do on the Constitution, What revisions would delegates from the RPF community submit? this topic can be on any issue in or not currently in the document. A few examples:
would you add provisions to break up the possibility of a two party system? what would they be?
Should there be changes to the electoral college?
Would you propose an alternate way of selecting the Supreme court?

The original intent of the first document has been greatly perverted over the last 200+ years, what would you change in the constitution or our way of governing knowing what we know now to prevent that from happening again?

In similar past conversations I've advised that it is instructive to read a historical example where this happened.
The confederacy indeed scrapped the 1789 constitution and wrote their own.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Sorry about the link, usconstitution.net has gotten pretty ad-ridden.
Of course you need to look past all the stuff about negro slaves. When you read it through, though, I think it's clear that the authors knew what the original intent of the US Constitution was, because they kept most of it.

But in particular you should note that the commerce clause in the confederate constitution contains extra caveats. Also, their RTKBA statement doesn't include the infamous comma.

And my favorite part of it is that the Article 5 convention was changed so that it it requires the petition of three states. Not two-thirds... three.
So yeah, there's all that negative stuff in there about negro slaves... and a virtual guarantee that slavery would be written out of their constitution within 30 years or so, as soon as the industrialization of the North made it down there. Sure, some states would probably have seceded and maybe held out through the 1920s or so... but there wouldn't have been a pile of ~750,000 bodies as a result.


Of course, if I was rewriting it, it would probably say only this:

1) Employment of all federal law enforcement officers and their supporting employees shall be terminated by January 1 2015. All assets owned by their employing agency shall be auctioned by this date. Revenues from these auctions shall be divided equally among terminated employees and offered as severance.

2) Employment of all other federal agents and their supporting employees shall be terminated by January 1 2018. All assets owned by their employing agency shall be auctioned by this date. Revenues from these auctions shall be divided equally among terminated employees and offered as severance.

3) The US Constitution of 1789 shall be inoperable as of January 1 2018.

That would do nicely.

Nothing. As it was written with just the original ten amendments it was the most inspired and well conceived government documents ever. The problem is not the document but the people. No amount of ink on paper can protect liberty when the people beg for shackles.

Amendment 2... Rewritten:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms as a means to defend themselves against criminals, foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and tyranny in government shall not be infringed.

Commerce clause rewritten:
Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and with the Indian Tribes. Congress shall have power to eliminate trade barriers among the states.

New Amendment: All federal elected officials shall be paid the average hourly rate of their district constituency. They will clock in for official duties such as managing their office, attendance in committee, attendance on floor, and meetings with diplomats and constituents. Campaigning must be done on their own time. Travel to and from places of work including overseas diplomatic trips is not paid, but transport expenses are reimbursable with receipt. All federal bureaucrats and office staff will be paid no more than 90% of the average hourly rate of their immediate superiors; Thus an agency head will receive 90% of the average hourly pay of the elected members of his or her overseeing committee.

(this amendment should seriously cut down on greedy people looking to join government service.)

Simple. Resubmit the 9th and 10th amendments exactly as written with a final sentence added to each..."And we mean it!"

I would put in a Constitutional referendum every 19 years, as Thomas Jefferson suggested

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierzStyx

Nothing. As it was written with just the original ten amendments it was the most inspired and well conceived government documents ever. The problem is not the document but the people. No amount of ink on paper can protect liberty when the people beg for shackles.

---

So you think they should put this part back in it?

Quote:

---

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruehound

Simple. Resubmit the 9th and 10th amendments exactly as written with a final sentence added to each..."And we mean it!"

---

I would prefer that they just whittle down the whole Constitution to the 10th Amendment, with nothing else that could be construed as an enumerated power, along with an article about how to add enumerated powers, by no means other than unanimous explicit consent of the whole population, to be renewed each time a person is added to the population with their consent, or else abolished.

Almost all powers enjoyed by the FedGov would be returned to the states, and absurd things like creating new federal agencies would require a super majority in both houses of congress. There's other things, but that's what springs to mind right now, plus secession/nullification rights, of course.

I'd define limits on what SCOTUS is allowed to do, as in not allowing unconstitutional laws to stand.

I'd eliminate the commerce clause entirely. Let markets work.

I'd make federal welfare unconstitutional. I'd make federal standing armies unconstitutional. I'd sunset all Congressional legislation after 10 years, max.

1. The complete right of secession at every level
2. Specific prohibition on government involvement in education at any level
3. Ten years of banishment for any representative who supports any bill that exceeds the enumerated powers or violates any of the specific prohibitions, to be determined by a council chosen by the States.
4. Specific prohibition on legal tender laws or laws inhibiting use of alternate currency

A lot of good stuff here! keep it coming guys1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Icymudpuppy

New Amendment: All federal elected officials shall be paid the average hourly rate of their district constituency. They will clock in for official duties such as managing their office, attendance in committee, attendance on floor, and meetings with diplomats and constituents. Campaigning must be done on their own time. Travel to and from places of work including overseas diplomatic trips is not paid, but transport expenses are reimbursable with receipt. All federal bureaucrats and office staff will be paid no more than 90% of the average hourly rate of their immediate superiors; Thus an agency head will receive 90% of the average hourly pay of the elected members of his or her overseeing committee.

(this amendment should seriously cut down on greedy people looking to join government service.)

---

I like this idea, i would also address it further in Article 1 by imposing term limits and also would take a look at the 1 representative for every 30,000 people. Somehow the congress froze their number at 435 which comes out to 1 in 700,000 representation. in this day and age i would not go for the 1:30,000 ratio but i feel that should be addressed with more representation (maybe cap it at 1,773 members) as long as their pay and term limits are in place.

I feel that the supreme court is something we should change the way it is selected, i am just having a hard time coming up with an alternative on my own. Obviously i would like to return the Senate to being elected by the state assembly's who would in turn confirm the presidents supreme court appointees. I doubt we will ever see the election of the senate returned to the original intent because everyday people just don't understand how this is supposed to work and will cry that we are stealing their "democracy". But perhaps we just take that power away from the senate and give it directly to each states assembly to select the supreme court would be a better option?

Add an amendment about the separation of business and state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of business, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

Add an amendment about the separation of business and state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of business, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

---

That's essentially Ayn Rand's galt amendment

Re-write project ideas:

This is an interesting exercise to clarify and put some teeth in the
contractual terms and consequences of exceeding the constitutional framework
for the federal government:

Make it clear the amendments are to limit the size, power and reach of the
federal government and its employees and/or sub-contractors.

Add an automatic re-boot and/or simple voting procedure to roll back any/all
future federal powers that exceed this constitution. e.g., congress was
supposed to have exclusive lawmaking power, but POTUS and numerous ABCD fed
agencies regulate/rule however they wish without limits. Today they can come
into your home and kill you if you posses the wrong kind of flower or if you
happen to have picked up a feather from the ground that once belonged to the
wrong kind of bird, etc.

Taxes to run the beast need to be tiny and expressly limited, maybe 5% of a
citizen’s annual income (15% if the person works for the government) as a suggested
minimum contribution.

Money must not be fiat or counterfeit(able) by people, computers or governments.
Would you like to contribute a dollar to the: Re-election campaign fund? Hillary's new
glasses? Obama's family vacation? Hollow point ammo for the department of...
(wait, they no longer exist)?
Maybe a contribution form should be made available:
Yes, I want more fedgov! Here’s my contribution of $_________________________
to be used for* (leave blank for the general fund, fill in the blank, attach
additional pages if desired.)
______EXAMPLE________Oilpainting portrait of Pres Obama_______________
*WARNING: Fedgov cannot overreach its constitutional limits.
You may be held responsible if this contribution/directive results
in the initiation of force or fraud upon others.

Incorporate the "initiation of force or fraud" and Victim restitution
and victimless crime concepts. Spell out the jury has supreme power in court
trials to determine the outcome and punishment.

Clarify many of the amendments that are being trashed today: no law may restrict
citizen's possession or use of "Arms" i.e., guns, bombs, tanks, laser
death ray, etc, that include whatever power and force necessary to prevent,
resist, repel or overthrow OUR OWN or any government intrusion into the lives
of citizens that oversteps its enumerated constitutional power i.e., tyranny
and/or gun grabber psychopaths in elected office, etc.

The 9^th and 10^th need to be spelled out for idiots. Maybe
listing a few bad examples would be helpful. (Insert acronym list of all
federal agencies here). Repeat 9th and 10th amendments again, and note:
These are only a few examples of things not to allow the fedgov to attempt, undoubtedly,
there are countless others. CLARIFY the US Constitution and these Amendments
are the ONLY areas the people give some of their individual rights and powers up
to the fedgov. The rights that the states and the people retain are nearly infinite.

Of the first 10 original amendments, only the 3rd is left pretty much intact.
The rest need some serious re-write clarifications or sumptin'.

Include nullification. Whenever a majority of the state legislatures declare an act void, it shall be repealed throughout the United States as if it had never been passed by the Congress and signed by the President.

Interesting. I have been working on something similar to this, although as a bill proposal; it is still mostly in first-draft form:

Lucid Accountability and Responsible Restraint on Union Powers Act (LARRUP ACT)

I'd eliminate it and go back to the Articles of Confederation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Confederate

I'd eliminate it and go back to the Articles of Confederation.

---

The Articles didn't work the first time around, and there's no indication they'd work now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts

The Articles didn't work the first time around, and there's no indication they'd work now.

---

Didn't work for who? The Federalists who wanted a centralized government or those who believed that the nation was founded by sovereign states?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts

The Articles didn't work the first time around, and there's no indication they'd work now.

---

They didn't work to accomplish what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pahs1994

I thought this might be a fun topic... If there ever was to be a Con-Con or a chance to get a total re-do on the Constitution, What revisions would delegates from the RPF community submit? this topic can be on any issue in or not currently in the document. A few examples:
would you add provisions to break up the possibility of a two party system? what would they be?
Should there be changes to the electoral college?
Would you propose an alternate way of selecting the Supreme court?

The original intent of the first document has been greatly perverted over the last 200+ years, what would you change in the constitution or our way of governing knowing what we know now to prevent that from happening again?

---

I did that over 20 years ago. A whole new Constitution - radically different from what we have and enormously improved in terms of eliminating easy reinterpretation of what has been written. In the course of the exercise it became clear to me that without right-minded people a constitution is worth less than the paper upon which it is penned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierzStyx

Nothing. As it was written with just the original ten amendments it was the most inspired and well conceived government documents ever.

---

Not even close. It is a poor execution of a good fundamental idea. It is vaguely written and there is NO ironclad protection of ANYTHING due to the built-in power to amend everything. It is not quite a dismal failure, but it really is not very good either. The right intentions and ideas of the framers went off the rails in execution - possibly not their faults because after all, they were attempting to peddle a set of radically different ideas to a bunch of crooked bastards who most likely would not have signed on had the vagaries not been present, which of course paved their ways forward for the current tyrannies under which we suffer.

Quote:

---

The problem is not the document but the people. No amount of ink on paper can protect liberty when the people beg for shackles.

---

And here you are right on the money.

I would, however, submit that a greatly improved document would make our rights easier to defend.

Separation of All Money and State.
Separation of All Education and State.
Separation of All Media and State.

Be sure to read through the (last) USSR Constitution from the late 70's and the Dec-1988 amendments.
Lot's of bad stuff to avoid!
But there was some good stuff in there too; it appears that their secession option actually was used!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Soviet_Constitution

Hard to write something that the serpents won't wriggle around.
How about all federal expenditure has to be approved unanimously by every state legislature. Outta suck the life right outta the beast.

I would make violation of one's oath of office a death penalty offense.

I bet the death penalty would keep all but the most determined psychopaths from seeking to hold office. We only need the very best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom

I would make violation of one's oath of office a death penalty offense.

---

And who determines whether the oath was upheld? Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan?

USSR: (from Wiki) [It sounds so good on paper... what could go wrong?]

Constitutional rightsThe Soviet Constitution included a series of civil and political rights. Among these were the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly and the right to religious belief and worship. In addition, the Constitution provided for freedom of artistic work, protection of the family, inviolability of the person and home, and the right to privacy. In line with the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the government, the Constitution also granted social and economic rights not provided by constitutions in capitalist nations. Among these were the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits.
Unlike Western constitutions, the Soviet Constitution outlined limitations on political rights, whereas in democratic countries these limitations are usually left up to the legislative and/or judicial institutions. Article 6 effectively eliminated partisan opposition and division within government by granting to the CPSU the power to lead and guide society. Article 39 enabled the government to prohibit any activities it considered detrimental by stating that "Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state." Article 59 obliged citizens to obey the laws and comply with the standards of socialist society as determined by the party. The government did not treat as inalienable those political and socioeconomic rights the Constitution granted to the people. Citizens enjoyed rights only when the exercise of those rights did not interfere with the interests of the state, and the CPSU alone had the power and authority to determine policies for the government and society. For example, the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 52 could be suspended if the exercise of that freedom failed to be in accord with party policies. Until the era of glasnost, freedom of expression did not entail the right to criticize the government. The constitution did provide a "freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda." It prohibited incitement of hatred or hostility on religious grounds.