If you had an unlimited amount of power to rewrite the Const

[Lago_AM3P]

What would you put in it/add/take out?

The first thing that comes to mind is a way to recall Senators. That is, if I even had Senators in the first place. I don't think I would.

And a better way to elect the President.

And explicit limits on the influence the military-industrio complex (or any lobby group) can have on the representatives.

Something that guarantees the right to organize. Also explicitly spelled-out privacy rights.

Definitely some anti-torture amendment.

A freedom of the press that isn't just 'the freedom to own your own press'.

And then finally we'll have a statement of things that the US should never do and the people should automatically be suspicious if the government dabbles or tries to justify dabbling in these things. You know, like supporting governments like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Israel or denying aid to people in need.

[Username17]

The Senate should be a parliament, the House of Representatives should remain roughly as-is. That is, we should have 33 senatorial seats change hands every 2 years, with the seats being given to each political party based on their share of the overall national vote towards Senate Seats.

So for example, in 2008 we would all select one political party that we liked the best (irrespective of who we voted for in Presidential, Representative, or School Board elections). Let's say that despite the fact that I voted for Sam Farr (Democrat - California) for the House of Representatives of my area that the party which I really feel most at home with is the Anarcho-Syndicalists. I would cast my vote for that party, and away we go to the counting.

All the parties who couldn't get 3.4% of the vote just fall off the roster altogether. Sorry, they don't get to have a Segregationist or Beer Drinkers seat in the Senate just because they can get 1% of the electorate to throw a protest vote. Then all the remaining parties get a number of seats in the senate according to their proportional draw of the remaining votes. Ties are distributed top-down. So if my beloved Anarcho Syndicalists got 4% of the vote, they'd probably end up with a seat or two in the senate this election. And they'd get one the next election, and the one after that if they kept getting sufficient votes.

So each election cycle, the party would have to campaign a platform and submit a list of 33 people who embody their stated ideals (obviously, the latter half of that list is mostly ceremonial). And the senate would then reflect a cross section of actual major political thought in the nation as a whole (while the House of Representatives would still exist to represent regional concerns).

Then we should probably divide up the executive powers, because the presidency is crazy overpowered. Having a President and a Prime Minister is one approach. Another is putting the police in the hands of the Legislature.

-Username17

[Koumei]

1195080764[/unixtime]]
Sorry, they don't get to have a Segregationist or Beer Drinkers seat in the Senate just because they can get 1% of the electorate to throw a protest vote.

I bet the Beer Drinkers would get in, no problem. Or maybe I'm just assuming America loves its beer the way Australia does.

[Maj]

I'd like to see less government officials mixing and mingling with corporations. I have no idea how to put that in there.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I'd write it so that I was supreme emperor, and the entire scientific/medical complex would halt all research that didn't directly involve making me immortal.

Fuck society. I want the best possible life for myself that is available.

[JonSetanta]

I would rewrite my Constitution as like a 30-something. Yeah. Nice Fort save.

1195082332[/unixtime]]

1195080764[/unixtime]]
Sorry, they don't get to have a Segregationist or Beer Drinkers seat in the Senate just because they can get 1% of the electorate to throw a protest vote.

I bet the Beer Drinkers would get in, no problem. Or maybe I'm just assuming America loves its beer the way Australia does.

Oh yes, we do. Very much.
Aussies and Americans have much more in common than most realize.

[MrWaeseL]

1195093510[/unixtime]]I'd write it so that I was supreme emperor, and the entire scientific/medical complex would halt all research that didn't directly involve making me immortal.

Fuck society. I want the best possible life for myself that is available.

I was going with 'mandatory blowjobs...FOR ME!', but this pretty much. If I could rewrite the Constitution any way I'd please you could be damn sure I'd come out on top.

[ckafrica]

Canada is talking about changing its senate to an elected position (they are currently appointed by the PM through the Queen) I think they should be drawn by lot from the general population with mandatory service unless the candidate can prove extenuating circumstances (sickness or something like that). They would not be able to draft new laws (they can't now anyways) but would review all legislation and pass them be able to refer them back to the house of commons with recommendations.

[Koumei]

Yeah, same here. As someone who doesn't have illusions of being holy and pure, I'd give a big "Fuck you!" to everyone else Well, not exactly. But I'd make sure I was on top.

Mostly I don't think about the big constitution stuff, just the small things like policies for education systems, and road laws.

[Neeek]

Somethings are particularly easy and obvious:

I'd repeal the 3rd Amendment, clarify the 2nd Amendment, eliminate the Electoral College. clarify significantly the role of the President (especially with regards to his role as CiC), make the absence of an executive privilege written into the document, be a bit more specific on the size of the Supreme Court, probably include a cause of action in the Constitution for "This law violates the Constitution" to get around the case or controversy problem, explicitly grant the courts the power of judicial review, and explicitly ban torture.

Some other things to consider are proportionate representation (like Frank suggested), require an explicit Act of Congress to deploy troops anywhere outside the US, which must be renewed annually.

[Maj]

I'd repeal the 3rd Amendment

Why?

I think I'd also want some sort of body to review laws every five years to see if they need to be removed, revised, or otherwise streamlined. Maybe another body for preventing red tape build-up in government agencies, too.

[Lago_AM3P]

Oh, yeah, I'd also explicitly spell out definitions and punishments for:

Bribery
Aiding Bribery
Perjury by a member of higher government
A member of higher government refusing to give testimony
The name of whatever bullshit George W. Bush pulled in Katrina
Perjury by a member of higher government. Fucking seriously, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and the current president should be rotting in jail right fucking now.
Any kind of white collar crime.

I would pretty much destroy PACs wholesale.

This also seems to be a good chance to forever put the nix on extraterritoriality. It's a ridiculous fear, but hey, you never know.

I would also make it illegal to destroy or hide a document under any condition, even if it's classified, and create an agency devoted to storing this.

I'd also use this opportunity to explicitly create an intelligence-gathering organization and spell out its responsibilities, powers, and scope.

Hmm. Oh, Congress gets to vote on the issue of (de)classification of all documents.

Situations in which to initiate a draft are clearly spelled out.

If you get put in higher government, all sources of income (including campaign finance), all expenditures, and all contracts you signed must be disclosed.

And this is a good time as any to state that we're really goddamn serious about equal rights and protection under the law in the US.

An explicit limit on the amount of time anyone is allowed to be detained in the US and a requirement by Congress to vote again to hold trial or release this person. Also a full list of anyone held in the US.


More as I think of them.

[Neeek]

1195106526[/unixtime]]

I'd repeal the 3rd Amendment

Why?

Because having unnecessary laws on the books is generally a bad idea. There has never been a point where the 3rd has ever been necessary, so why have it? More specifically, I wouldn't bother to include it if I was writing a new Constitution, and it wouldn't occur to most people to do so.

I think I'd also want some sort of body to review laws every five years to see if they need to be removed, revised, or otherwise streamlined. Maybe another body for preventing red tape build-up in government agencies, too.

Most laws already have a sunset provision. Some are longer than 5 years for a reason. The Civil Rights Act of 1964* for example. They weren't sure they'd have the votes to renew it any time soon, so they stuck (IIRC) a 40 year sunset provision on it. I don't consider this a bad thing.

*The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made discrimination in employment, housing and public places illegal.

[Maj]

Because having unnecessary laws on the books is generally a bad idea.

Agreed. Just curious, thanx.

[Username17]

I would pretty much destroy PACs wholesale.

Why? The PAC is actually the basis by which large numbers of relatively powerless individuals with similar opinions get things done. If anything, I think more things should work like PACs.

Without the PAC, the individual rich man can still do things (purchase billboards, run ads in papers and television, finance projects which are near to he hearts of politicians) which will influence politics. Corporations can too. But I can't. I don't have the money or the free time.

But with the PAC, people like me can give small donations to the Sierra Club, and similar organizations, and then the PAC can then do those things that corporations do for themselves.

I'm not super jazzed about the connection between money and influence that currently exists, but the PAC is an extension of the right to organize.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

Members of the mass media lying needs to be treated as a very serious offense.

[tzor]

To be honest, I’m not sure how I would rewrite the constitution. I’m really convinced that the United States has lasted as long as it has because the founding fathers created a system of interlocking pieces that worked, even though we have dismantled a lot of the blocks that the founding fathers created. If I were to rewrite the constitution I would restore a lot of those interlocking blocks.

We are called the “United States” for a reason. We began as a collection of colonies, upgraded to states and commonwealths that banded together for the common good. We had big states, little states, states highly divided over issues (then it was slavery, today it could just as easily be abortion) with different ideas on how they wanted to approach things. The first interlocking block is the balance between the State and Federal government. This I think needs to be maintained and firmly established in the constitution so that States have certain rights, responsibilities and powers and the Federal government has other rights, responsibilities and powers.

On the legislative branch I would blur the House and refocus the Senate. The House is supposed to be a people’s body. We have come to the point where we can dissolve all notions of state whatsoever from it. Members for the House should be appointed based on the population at large and the boundaries for representatives need not be restricted to state boundaries. Districting for the House should be done at the Federal level, not the State level along with the appropriately timed census.

I would return the Senate to what it once was. If you think about it, the Senate was supposed to be the UN of the US. Senators were selected by each state to represent their interest in the Federal government. I know we all “love” democracy but I would return the appointment of Senators to the States.

The one major change I would put in the constitution would be to establish clearly what types of legislation the Senate is supposed to initiate, and the rest of the legislation could only be initiated by the House. This prevents the dueling banjoes of legislation where the House passes water, the Senate passes oil, and the compromise committee combines the two and comes up with whiskey (?) which requires an up or down vote. Any legislation that is passed by one body requires a 2/3 majority by the other body to amend, such amendments if passed and approved require a 2/3 majority of the original body to veto, otherwise the legislation is approved as amended and passed to the President for signature or veto. That’s my one radical modification to the constitution.

[Lago_AM3P]

On the legislative branch I would blur the House and refocus the Senate. The House is supposed to be a people’s body. We have come to the point where we can dissolve all notions of state whatsoever from it. Members for the House should be appointed based on the population at large and the boundaries for representatives need not be restricted to state boundaries. Districting for the House should be done at the Federal level, not the State level along with the appropriately timed census.

You have completely lost me here.

I would return the Senate to what it once was. If you think about it, the Senate was supposed to be the UN of the US. Senators were selected by each state to represent their interest in the Federal government. I know we all “love” democracy but I would return the appointment of Senators to the States.

I definitely can't wrap my mind around this.

Why are these good things? I can go into detail why I think that this is very, very bad and even a little contradictory if you care.

[Captain_Bleach]

If I had unlimited power in the seat of government, I'd become an incredibly brutal dictator. I do not know whether I would be successful or not, but the temptation to enforce your will with minimal protest in your sphere of influence can be... intoxicating to the mind.

[tzor]

One of the current problems of the House of Representatives is that the allocation of representatives is based on the state level. State legislatures draw up and approve districting plans based on who is in power at the state level at the time. Your ability to have representation in Congress rests solely upon your citizenship in a particular state. If you live in the capital (Washington DC, not a state) you get a non voting representative. The idea is to globalize the house so that citizens who live outside the US or have residences in non US states can have a vote.

As for the Senate, one of the biggest problems is that there is a disconnect between the Federal and the State level. The Federal government has developed a number of means to promote their authority on the states, even though the constitution is generally not supporative of such things. Having a body of the legislature once more directly appointed by the states would allow at a federal level a body that is more respectful of constitutionally appointed states right, just as having a house elected diretly by the people allows a better represenation of the interests of the people. Besides, it's got to be cheeper than using state tax payer's monies for lobbists.

When different pieces of the government represent different interests then there is a greater dynamic at work than when they represent redundant interests. As it is there is nothing really different between the house and the senate, same shit just different committees. Blanced but opposing forces makes for good government.

[cthulhu]

I'd formalise a process for electoral distribution that was as gerrymander proof as possible. I suspect that would be a good idea for most countries in general.

Removing responsibility for electoral boundries from elected officals and assigning it to a bunch of public servants with (extremely) clear disclosure guidelines would probably be a good idea too.

[technomancer]

I'd have the punishment for fraud and bribery (both sides -- giving and accepting) be that all of your assets are siezed and used for public works. If you have a family, your spouse gets the equavlent of alimony and/or child support from your assets which were siezed. There are few crimes that piss me off more than fraud and bribery.

[JonSetanta]

"Legalese" needs to be abolished.

[Neeek]

1195197185[/unixtime]]"Legalese" needs to be abolished.

That's really not plausible. Most legalese is shorthand for otherwise fairly complicated concepts.

[tzor]

1195197185[/unixtime]]"Legalese" needs to be abolished.

While the party of the first part might desire legalese to be abolished, the party of the second part does not mind legalese but absolutely hates the fine print.

Your mileage may vary. Argument void where prohibited by law and or taxed by Democrats. In acepting this argument the acceptor gives up all rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness except in those cases where such rights of the transfer of those rights are prohibited by law and or taxed by Republicans. No nits were picked in the writing of this disclaimer.