Replies

If there is one change I would make to the US constitution, it is this... Freedom of Speech would be guaranteed for all -- except for celebrities. So you can enjoy your right to participate in the national debate if you'd like to, or you can make your million dollars per film, concert, or game. But not both. Now shut up and sing.

“Iceland’s population of 320,000 is among the world’s most computer-literate. Two-thirds of Icelanders are on Facebook ...”

So using Facebook makes you “computer-literate” does it?

And we wonder why the world is the way it is...

The commerce clause is the most abused clause period.

The reason the U.S. Constitution should not be changed is twofold: The men who wrote it originally were ten times more savvy than anybody alive today, and two, the enemies of our nation are in control of our power center.

Mob rule for the New Millenium.

How about a nice, real-time, "dynamic" constitution? Wouldnt that be the epitome of "responsive" gov't?

For those of you in Rio Linda: /s.

Just cause I use a sarc tag doesnt mean it won't happen.

On the topic of creating a constitution from scratch? Limit the length of the document to approximately that of the US Constitution. This will force the cream to the top. Consider including a second level of law, bylaws, in addition to the constitution. Bylaws would be easier to change than the constitution but harder to change than the simple majority(s) needed for routine laws.

If there is one change I would make to the US constitution,

One change to the Constitution? Congressional Term Limits.
Two changes to the Constitution? Repopulate the Supreme Court with named conservatives, put term limits on SCOTUS justices, and elect future SCOTUS justices as running mates of the presidential candidates.
Three changes to the Constitution? Make US senators running mates of state governors. And make governors rather than senators the judges of federal impeachments.

it is this... Freedom of Speech would be guaranteed for all -- except for celebrities. So you can enjoy your right to participate in the national debate if you'd like to, or you can make your million dollars per film, concert, or game. But not both. Now shut up and sing.

How would that rule have affected Ronald Reagan?
The problem we have with the First Amendment jurisprudence centers on failure to enforce it fully. The First Amendment is crafted to forbid communication monopoly - anyone can express their opinion in person (speech) or technologically (press), on topics of any level of importance (specifically including religion and government).
Now, if I am entitled to express my opinion on government technologically I have to be able to spend as much of my own money doing it as I wanna. Without government regulation. So much for the constitutionality of 'Campaign Finance Reform."
And if anyone can own a radio or TV channel, everyone who can afford it can own a radio/TV channel. If anyone can run a web site, everyone who can afford it can run a web site. Bandwidth is radically more plentiful now than it was at the dawn of the electronic communication era. So much for FCC regulation.
And because of the radically lower cost of bandwidth, the mission of the Associated Press - to conserve bandwidth in the dissemination of news - is no longer particularly significant, and the AP is in no sense "too big to fail." The AP was found by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. IMHO it is still in violation of that act, and it should be abolished.
IMHO the result of proper First Amendment jurisprudence would be a significant reduction in the influence of celebrities, including journalists.