Skip to comments.Freep this poll
Posted on 05/20/2005 12:49:29 PM PDT by sparkomatic
1) If you were in charge of writing a whole new Constitution for America, what would it say?
Nothing different than the current one says 6 60.00%
A few minor changes 2 20.00%
It wouldn't even be recognizable! 2 20.00%
Mt. Gilead! Dang. Here I was thinking I should maybe look into property there.
Tee Hee. It's working. Jumped up to 25 good votes already.
Freeped (a few minor changes)
FReeped. I'd change a couple of minor things, like clearly stating the original intent so liberals couldn't twist the meaning anymore.
And add, "This is not a living, breathing document. It means what it says, and says what it means."
Add to that "No slavery". How many of our troubles today stem from that stain upon our nation?
79% - nothing different
I could inclue, "This Constitution will always be interpreted literally. Any judge violating this provision is subject to impeachment and removal from the bench."
Another bump for more freeping.
For all you 29%ers out there.
What minor changes would you make?
I would get started with the line below. Taken directly from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America
March 11, 1861.
(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Now at 75.84%
What's wrong on your Costitution Americans?
This paper from the French Revolution on the whole West has copied, from this has drawn inspiration, still constitutes the backbone of America.
1. Absolutely no income or private property taxes. EVER!
2. The second amendment. "The obligation of every free American man women and responsible child to keep and bear arms can in no way be infringed, licensed or regulated in any way by any federal, state or local government or any other regulatory body private or public.
3. Every ten years, each congressional district will hold free elections to elect a body of citizenry for a term not to exceed six months who's sole function will be to review the operational buearocracy of the Federal government and eliminate any department or function other than those clearly enumerated in the constitution that have been created in the previous ten years. There shall be no appeal to the decisions handed down by this temporary body. all decisions of the body will be decided on a strict majority vote after no more than three days of debate.
4. Your right to freedom of religion does not mean you have an absolute right to freedom from religion.
I'd put term limits on judges.
And I'd prevent the 14th Amendment from ever passing.
And I'd expressly forbid a federal income tax.
I'd add: that every bill passed by Congress must cite it's specific Constitutional authority; that the purpose of regulatory agencies is to monitor enforcement, meaning all new regulations must be passed specifically by Congress; that all appropriations must be limited directly to the powers granted to the Federal Congress in clauses 1 through 18 in Article 1, Section 9 - all other appropriations are therefore Constitutional; that the preamble is just that - an introduction - and that therefore the phrase "to promote the general welfare does not hold force of statute"; that enumerated rights embody no "penumbras"; repeal amendments 17 and 26; add clauses to amendment 24 stating that each voter, upon attaining voting age will demonstrate competency to vote by passing with a grade of 70% or greater an bipartisan examination pertaining to the provision contained within this document and that any person not being able to identify both federal senators, the representative of his congressional district, the president and vice presidents of the United States will not be permitted to vote until the next federal election, at which time the same questions will be posed; a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress in two separate sessions is sufficient to overturn any decision of the U.S. Supreme Court; the federal judiciary has no enforcement power - only the executive and legislative branches have that authority; Presidential executive orders cannot void, even temporarily, laws duly passed by the Legislature; if the Legislature makes provisions for the temporary suspension of a given law, for example in time of emergency, that suspension must be for a preordained period of time and the situations that can be considered such an emergency must be specifically defined. If given time, I might be able to come up with a few more!
Just thought of two more: there is no constitutional right not to be offended and that property cannot commit a crime, therefore civil forfeiture is a violation of your 4th Amendment right to be secure in your property and in your 5th Amendment protection against seizure of property without just compensation.
I love most of what you've said. But I think that by allowing Congress to overturn the SC you'd just transfer the runaway branch from the judicial to the legislative. Essentially you'd let them get away with passing anything, no matter how Unconstitutional, as long as they had 2/3 support two years running.
I'd make purposing any legislation, executive order, or judicial activism, that runs contrary to the plain wording of the Constitution punishable the same as treason.
Well, that's not much different than what they do now, of course. But at least, you'd have the possibility of voting the bums out as opposed to the judiciary. You have to leave the judiciary as lifetime appointments to try to isolate them from political games as much as possible but restore the intent to make them subservient to the legislature (witness what happened with direct election of Senators, as opposed to selection by state legislatures - a twofold effect of greatly lessening the role of the states in determining federal policy as well as turning great statesmen into political hacks). Alternatively, you could just prevent them from having the power they usurped in the first place via Madison v. Marbury of deciding Constitutionality.
No. Judges would only play political games if they could run for re-election. Make it simple - one term (10 years?) then you're out of the game forever.
And ... yeah, in many MANY ways we'd be better off w/out Marbury v. Madison... but ultimately I think it's necessary (to prevent a runaway legislature)... and the historical record suggests that the framers overwhelmingly approved of judicial review...
Oh. And I don't trust the people to "vote the bums out" if the unconstitutional laws they pass are popular.
Yes, which is why I didn't add it but specifically stated that Congress could overturn an obvious misrule (e.g. Pledge of Allegiance comes to mind). By making it take two sessions (which some states do for amendments to their Constitution) makes it hard enough to do that it just wouldn't be an example of Congressional pique at being overruled.