Change the Consitution...

[The Comrade]

[Medius]

[Spider]

Its critical knowledge for anyone at any level who will be taking any sort of biology class. Which is pretty much the entire healthcare sector, for one, and half of the sciences for another.

[The Comrade]

[bigstick61]

There are quite a few changes I think needs to be made, largely entailing large-scale repealing of post-bellum constitutional amendments.

I believe the issue of suffrage should be left in the hands of the States. I do not believe in national interference in suffrage qualifications, especially when it comes to State or lower level offices. Therefore the suffrage amendments should be repealed.

I am against term limits with perhaps one exception (a single very long term for judges as opposed to life terms), so therefore I would repeal the 22nd Amendment.

I also do not believe that the District of Columbia should be treated the same as a State when it comes to representation in the Electoral College, and therefore support the repeal of that amendment.

Regarding the 14th Amendment, there is much reason to object to many of its provisions. If in fact the Warren Court were right regarding it (which it is not, but its rulings are the accepted ones in practice these days, constitution be damned), the 14th Amendment would be intolerable. The part dealing with the Civil War is obsolete. The part dealing with suffrage, while not mandating universal adult male suffrage, nevertheless served to strongly discourage a qualified franchise where it still existed and encouraged a universal franchise, and therefore I find it objectionable. I also find objectionable the provision that essentially takes out of the hands of the States the definition of a citizen of each respective State. Finally, we get to the due process clause, equal protection clause, and privileges and immunities clause. If strictly limited to their proper meanings, these clauses are not wholly objectionable. They would pose a minimum burden on the States and permit only very limited intrusion by the national government. In practice they have been used to greatly further government centralization and major expansion of the power of the judiciary (despite the amendment giving the power of enforcement exclusively to Congress). Those clauses are worded in as simple and straightforward a manner as is possible, being terms that go back to the original constitution or the common law. If such can be so grossly misinterpreted, then the whole amendment needs to go; if the courts and Congress can be restricted to only enforcing the strict meaning of those clauses, then they could stay, but the rest of the 14th Amendment should certainly be repealed.

Then we come to the commerce clause, another clause with a limited meaning that has been used as a tool by progressives on the courts to give the government nearly unlimited power and to greatly further the centralization of power. As much as changes to this clause and the clauses mentioned above could be interpreted as a validation of the usurpations and abuses of the courts and Congress, change is needed. The clause here should be amended to make clear the intent, which is to prevent States from interfering with and obstructing interstate trade and related issues that plagued the country under the Articles of Confederation. Basically, it should be a clause mandating and enforcing free trade within the Union.

Since I believe that a key to federalism is the representation of smaller units at the next level of government, and that in a Union of pre-existing States this is even more important, the 17th Amendment should be repealed. The States as political entities should have direct representation, rather than being deprived of it, in the Senate, and all members of the Union. The provision in the Constitution prohibiting amending the constitution to deny States equal representation in the Senate should be modified to ensure that State governments cannot be so deprived.

Since the 16th Amendment provides the means for funding a massive government, one that is able to readily escape its constitutional bounds, it needs to be repealed. I can see a limited exemption for periods of declared war if the income tax is both necessary and proper in that particular circumstance, provided revenue so gained can only be used for military purposes and that the tax must be flat for all persons who are liable to be so taxed.

I believe the Electoral College needs to be strengthened as an institution so that it can serve its intended purpose, and so that it cannot be perverted again as it has been to this point. The constitution would be amended to prohibit vote-pledging, prohibit States from in any way directing or penalizing the vote of an Elector, and affirming their right to freely choose who to vote for. It should also make selection of Electors, regardless of the method chosen by the States, non-partisan to include an elimination of voting for slates of Electors; Electors would have to be individually chosen and run in their own name based on their own merits and political beliefs.

I would institutionalize the filibuster in the sense that it would be a constitutional rule for the Senate, not one chosen by the Senate voluntarily. But only the filibuster sustained by actual debate would be protected. I would also give a State's representation in the Senate a limited liberum veto. It couldn't be applied to any and all bills, but only those which affect a particular State or locality within, or that affects rights and privileges, or that involve revenue, and perhaps a couple of other things; there would be a limit of how many could be used per session and per Congressional term. Any bill so vetoed (and any substantially similar, to prevent nullification of this power) would be dead for the remainder of the session and if vetoed more than once in a term, for the remainder of the term. They also could not be brought up in any sort of emergency session.

The Presidential veto would be expanded to include a line-item veto. It would only apply to bills regarding spending and revenue, and to bills covering more than one topic or organization. Each line item vetoed would have to be overturned individually.

There would also be a rule that with the exception of budgets, bills would be limited in what they can cover, subject-wise; omnibus bills would certainly be put to an end. Amendments would have to be germane. The line-item veto for non-germane amendments would be absolute.

I would strengthen the 5th Amendment to include protections against providing evidence against one's self, and not just testimony.

I would also deal with the matter of representation for the remaining colonial possessions we have (Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico). Each would have a right to representation in the House (but not the Senate, which will only be for members of the Union) and apportionment would include their populations. The District of Columbia would be treated the same. Presidential Elector apportionment would be based on the amount of Representatives they have, respectively. Congress could also choose to give ex-pats representation by world region, provided they cannot vote for Representatives in any State or colony. They collectively could not be taxed in terms of income tax in the limited cases such a tax would be permitted unless they had such representation as a group.

The right of States to leave the Union would be affirmed, but it would be qualified; articles of secession would have to meet a certain standard, and Congress would be limited to certifying them. States would then be free to leave, but would be permitted to change their minds up to the point of formal secession. Any State that left the Union and desires to return would be subject to the same rules of admission as any other prospective States.

The issue of inadequate representation would be dealt with (although we are too big of a country to permit anything close to ideal in this regard). The unconstitutional cap on representatives would be lifted and a constitutional one would be placed at 1,000 Representatives (any more would just be too unwieldy). An amendment similar to Madison's (the one article of the Bill of Rights not ratified) would be put into place, but taking into account our much larger population. The numbers would give us a House of Representatives about the size of the House of Commons. As membership increases the minimum population per Representative would be increased until the cap is arrived at.

The powers of judges would also be clarified to ensure that it is clear that their power is a very limited one, and not the expansive one they have gotten via usurpation.

Finally, there would be an affirmation of States' rights to military forces in the form of militias. While Congress could still provide regulations, provide for federalization under the currently listed circumstances, and retain control over States having non-militia personnel (troops) and ships of war (which would be interpreted to mean vessels large enough to be classified as ships rather than boats, that are combatants or amphibious) to include total prohibition, they could not prohibit States from having militias or restrict their ability to have them, their armaments, or their training. This would of course be separate from the second amendment, which covers an individual right to keep and bear arms (which is important in this context, but nevertheless is a different matter).

There are probably more things I'd do or consider, but I can't think of them right off the top of my head. My ideas for amending California's constitution are much more extensive.

[JDHURF]

tl;dr

[eynon81]

[a777pilot]

[Hyperion]

To keep it brief, I'm a huge proponent of direct democracy, although that is not to say the democracy solely relies on 50%+1. I'm contemplative and supportive of other measures: demarchy, super-majorities, e-voting, wiki-style referendums, etc. Little r republicanism appears to breed more apathy and character worship than anything else. A democracy is more engaging to the public.

[eynon81]