Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Six Necessary Changes to Our Constitution

By Larry J. Sabato, AlterNet. Posted December 6, 2007.


Our founding fathers would be amazed and disappointed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt the document to developments they couldn't have anticipated.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

From the separation of powers to the Bill of Rights, the United States Constitution remains brilliant in its overall composition. Since 1787, however, we have seen tremendous growth in our technologies, economy, population and military strength. Our founding document no longer addresses the complicated issues that affect our government and our citizens. If we really want to make progress and achieve greater fairness as a society, it is time for elemental change. And we should start by looking at the Constitution, with the goal of holding a new Constitutional Convention.

Sound radical? If so, then the founders were radicals. They would be amazed and disappointed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments that the founders could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787.

James Madison, George Washington, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson all insisted that the Constitution should be updated by future generations. Those sentiments were best expressed by Jefferson, who wrote to Madison that "no society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The Earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years" (the length of a generation in Jefferson's time).

Among the 23 proposals for Constitutional reform suggested in my new book, A More Perfect Constitution, here are six to start the debate.

* Restoring the war powers balance. The framers split authority concerning matters of war-making between the president (commander in chief) and Congress (declaring war). Does anyone seriously believe that they would have approved of the executive department waging years-long wars without the explicit approval of the legislature? Yet the advantages accruing to any president -- the unitary nature of the office, the swift action that only he can take in a hair-trigger world, his dominance of the televised public forum -- have created an emperor as much as a president. The constitutional balance of shared war-making must be restored.

The president should have the freedom to commit troops for up to six months, under procedures similar to that of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. But a new constitutional amendment should require that after six months -- and every six months thereafter -- both houses of Congress, by affirmative vote and without filibusters, would have to approve any extension. If one house votes no on extending, all combat troops must be withdrawn within a year.

This is an institutional reform, not a partisan attack on George W. Bush. Harry Truman on Korea and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon on Vietnam were every bit as stubborn as Bush has been on Iraq. It is in the nature of the single-minded, victory-insistent presidential beast.

* Creating a more representative Senate. Stunningly, just 17 percent of the current American population elects a majority of the U.S. Senate. This is because even though California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. The larger states may have 83 percent of the nation's people, but they get nothing without the approval of the lightly populated states. In the beginning of the republic, the population differential between the large and small states -- and thus the unfairness -- was far less.

But today, the structure of the upper chamber of Congress is completely outmoded. Let's build a fairer Senate by granting the 10 states with the greatest population two additional senators each, and the next 15 most populated states one additional senator each.

* Transforming presidential elections. Americans don't have to be convinced that our presidential election system is broken. The nation needs a sensible system of rotating regional primaries so that it would no longer be subject to the selfish whims of a few states.

The electoral college also must be overhauled, with more populated states receiving additional electors so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president. Why not abolish it entirely? The state-based electoral college isolates and simplifies recounts. Imagine how hopeless our predicament would be if the 2000 Florida recount had to be conducted nationwide.

* Ending second-class citizenship. We promote the cultural myth that any mother's son or daughter can grow up to be president, but it isn't even literally true.

The founders were concerned about foreign intrigue in the early days of an unsettled republic, so they limited the presidency to those who were "natural born" citizens. But the melting pot that is now the United States includes an astonishing 14.4 million Americans who were not born on U.S. soil and are therefore ineligible for the presidency -- a number sure to grow substantially. Among them are 30,000 members of the U.S. armed forces who risk life and limb to defend those enjoying first-class citizenship.

Any American who has been a citizen for at least 20 years should have the right to aspire to the White House.

* Instituting Judiciary Term Limits. Excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court--so much so that had the founders realized the courts' eventual powers, they would have limited judicial authority. The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day.

A nonrenewable term limit of 15 years should apply to all federal judges, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court.

* Universal National Service Requirement. The benefits of living in a great democracy are not a God-given right. In exchange for the privileges of American citizenship, every individual owes a debt of public service to his fellow citizens. The Constitution should mandate that all able bodied Americans devote two years of their lives to serving their nation--and whether the service is civilian or military, domestic or foreign, would be up to each individual. The civilian, military, and nonprofit options would have to accommodate the varied talents of the population, as well as our diverse dictates of conscience.

No thoughtful person will rush to Change the Constitution. This is a careful process that will take many years to work, but we must start to consider these long-delayed reforms if we are to incite change and reform. This is the beginning of the debate, the beginning of a generational conversation, both of which will lead to long-delayed Constitutional reform. It is this that will ultimately lead to better government, citizenship and society.

Please visit the Center for Politics Web site at www.centerforpolitics.org and www.amoreperfectconstitution.com for more info.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: democracy, constitution, bill of rights

Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country." He directs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Creating a more representative Senate?
Posted by: aethr on Dec 6, 2007 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're sure the founding fathers would have wanted this change? Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America, the article that describes the processes by which the Constitution can be amended, ends with the clause "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Or do you think that there could be unanimous consent among the states for a more proportional Senate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Senate
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Dec 6, 2007 1:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the other hand, nowhere does it say that the Senate shall not be deprived of power. It could be reduced to a largely ceremonial role.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Senate Posted by: brunowe
How about a separation between corporation and state?
Posted by: fifthsecret on Dec 6, 2007 1:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the founders outlined the principle of the separation of Church and State, they wanted to protect our fledgling nation against the undue influence of organizations which did not answer to the people. At this point hasn't the role of corporations caught up with, if not surpassed, that of any religous body? Why should GE be able to contribute one dollar if it cannot vote in the election? Churches' cannot contribute to or endorse campaigns. When the whole fundraising fiasco with the Buddhist monastery occurred some years ago, people were rightly upset at the prospect that a foreign government, allegedly China, was attempting to influence the American democratic process. How is a corporation really any different?

Ultimately Church, State, and Corporation are peer-level organisms competing for the same pool of limited resources and influence. It is a mistake for government, in its role of protecting first and foremost the interests of its citizens, to ever partner too closely with any given special interest, whether a union or a corporation. It is corporate money and media influence which have made a mockery of our elections and our hope for representative democracy. When our elected officials have to worry more about campaign donations than policy it only underscores what we already know: campaign finance is so out of whack we have no hope of representative democracy.

One of your six points was that immigrants, even foreign-born citizens are excluded from the process, but what about the poor and middle class? Because the amount of wealth it takes to run a competitive campaign for a seat in congress is prohibitive to the average American without heavy corporate backing. Why in a "Democracy" should organizations who represent the interests of only the very few be able to act as king-makers? We need to remember a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people."

One has only to look at the whole health-care crisis to see corporate influence run amok. Polls (and common decency) indicate that the vast majority of Americans want affordable health-care for all, but the powerful health-care lobby has effectively prevented any forward progress, in direct contradiction to the wishes of the majority. Lawmakers act as if their hands are tied, because they are. Their powerful patrons have not given them permission to intervene and the corporate media , another division of these same corporate interests, do their best to obfuscate the issues beyond recognition.

According to the 1934 Federal Communications Act, the electro-magnetic spectrum, the "airwaves" are the property of the American people, and broadcasters have access to them so long as they serve the "public interest." Why can't campaign air-time be free? Why are sound-bites 10 times shorter than they were during the Kennedy-Nixon contest? What, if any, kind of nuanced policy position can be articulated in five seconds? Why are campaigns treated as horse-races and money contests rather than competing policy visions, with an emphasis on the candidates' policies? Why is international news given such short airplay compared to the other nations of the G-8? Why is the term "investigative journalism" even necessary, if not to indicate what can no longer be expected from "journalism" alone?

While an 1886 Supreme Court ruling supposedly grants to corporations the same rights as persons, there is one fundamental difference between these organizations and individuals. American persons are expected to meet their responsibilities and obligations as CITIZENS, while corporations often don't even pay any taxes at all! What would the founders say if they saw just how much of this hard-fought-for democracy's legitimacy has been surrendered to proxies who don't answer to anything but greed and can't even vote? Before anything else we need a separation of corporation and state!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whoa!
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 6, 2007 2:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It wasn't going too badly until the last one, which--as the libertarians say--falls under "involuntary servitude". Once the government has your body under contract for two years, do you really think they're going to accommodate our "diverse dictates of conscience"? How's it going for people in the military right now?

And where do you get the idea that "every individual owes a debt of public service to his fellow citizens"? What exactly has Joe Average done for me that I owe him two years, or even five minutes of my life? Sounds like Mao's China to me.

If anything, I would want things in the Constitution that increase our freedoms rather than take them away, and further limit the government's power over us. I would like the government to leave us alone, and be more limited in what they can do with our taxes, which would hopefully reduce the need for taxes. This way, I have more freedom and/or resources to help my fellow citizens, according to the dictates of my conscience, without Big Brother telling me who to help, when to help, and how much time and money I should spend helping them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whoa! Posted by: Jungle Boy
» RE: Whoa! Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Whoa! Posted by: tjg1984
» RE: Whoa! Posted by: Crowbar
» RE: Whoa! Posted by: tjg1984
» RE: Whoa! WHOA! Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Whoa! WHOA! Posted by: timebomb734
anyone can be president?
Posted by: edp on Dec 6, 2007 3:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We promote the cultural myth that any mother's son or daughter can grow up to be president, but it isn't even literally true.... Any American who has been a citizen for at least 20 years should have the right to aspire to the White House."

all good and well. but let's face it, there's a very small pool of people who have are given the chance at the presidency and many are related.
stand back for a minute and think- bush snr, bush jnr + clinton 1 & 2.
many americans don't think about it in any depth, the leadership is just being passed around!
it's like north korea.

i sincerely hope things change.
a fresh face with fresh ideas is needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: anyone can be president? Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: anyone can be president? Posted by: rainingwolf
» Pretty Naive Posted by: Artkansas
Reform?
Posted by: astromathman on Dec 6, 2007 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've seen tax reform, welfare reform, education reform, etc. all of which have worsened the situation for everyone. All we need is an opportunity for the same opportunists to wreck the whole constitution in one blow. Fat chance real improvement will occur at a new constitutional convention. Power grabbing elites will just grab more power and make it easier to continue to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eform? Posted by: mrb1960
Here we go again
Posted by: dmaddox on Dec 6, 2007 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your argument for a more "proportional" Senate is EXACTLY why the founders wrote the Constitution the way they did. Small states like Rhode Island and Connecticut were afraid that larger states like Virginia and New York would enact laws benefitting their populations while ignoring the interests of the smaller states. Now you make the argument that larger states can't have what they want without the less populous states going along. Good! That's the way it was supposed to be.

The electoral college is already indexed for population, each state's elector count being based on the total number of representatives. Since the House of Representatives is based upon population, so is the electoral college. The structure of the electoral college gives a nice blend of proportional representation while curbing the power of the larger states.

Term limits on the judiciary, especially at the higher levels, would lessen the independence of the judiciary. A Supreme Court justice whose term is about to expire might be pressured or coerced into a judgement that would assure a reappointment. This is why the "advice and consent" duty of the Senate is so terribly important.

Hopefully the majority of the 20-odd proposals you speak of in your book are a bit more reasonable than the ones presented here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here we go again Posted by: John Wilbur
» RE: Here we go again Posted by: aethr
» RE: Here we go again Posted by: dmaddox
» RE: Here we go again Posted by: TheLimit
Changing the constitution
Posted by: DrTony on Dec 6, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is always amazing that people will suggest ways to amend the Constitution when things are not going the way they want them to. It doesn't matter if it is abortion, prayer in school, burning the flag, or any of the topics mentioned in this post. While the Constitution was designed to be amended, the design was done deliberately in order to make sure the changes were necessary and appropriate.

Do we need an amendment where we have a law? The authors want to make an amendment out of the War Powers act. They don't need to do that. What needs to be done is for Congress to do what it was supposed to do in the first place. The power to declare war resides with Congress but Congress has let that power go. It must recover that power; having a Constitutional amendment will not accomplish that.

If the President or another member of the executive branch carries out actions which can be deemed high acts of treason, the Congress must act. Amending the Constitution will not prevent the President from carrying out illegal and unconstitutional acts. But having Congress use the powers that are in the present Constitution will do that.

Of course, this is all predicated on the fact that the people are the deciders. As long as all the people remain silent, Congress will be the voice of the rich, the corporations, and the powerful who have their lobbyists writing the bills. The people have the power but they must use it or they will lose it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Changing the constitution Posted by: timebomb734
Jungle Boy
Posted by: Jungle Boy on Dec 6, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As you said, quoting Jefferson, the Constitution EXPIRES after about 19 years!
WE(The People) are NOT a PARTY to the Constitution(especially the fraudulent one of 1871).
Go Back To School!
Read about The Constitution that never was!!!
www.lysanderspooner.org

WE stand on the Declaration of Independence and
The Bill of Rights. We "might" be a Beneficiary of the Constitution if we accept The Oath of Office of those we want to be responsible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow
Posted by: Axiom69 on Dec 6, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So many intelligent and thought provoking comments in one place. Everyone presents good points and counter points without any bashing or name calling. I think Alternet finally found a topic people can agree to disagree on. With that being said the main point where I disagree with the author is on the Senate. Giving each state two Senators was a counter balance to the House of Representatives where the states are represented according population. Giving extra Senators to populous states would upset that balance, disenfranchise smaller states and cause more problems than it would solve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow Posted by: VZEQICVA
Larry J. Sabato: Founding Father of a New American Republic?
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Dec 6, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the Constitution is just fine the way it is. It just needs to be followed and a lot of problems would straighten themselves right out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good one
Posted by: dayenta on Dec 6, 2007 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article with terrific, discussion-provoking commentary. Article & commentary should be given to every high school civics class in the US. I agree the Senate is set up the way it should be, also think the 2 year service is a good idea. However, there is much to be gained by simply applying the Constitution fairly and equally in all instances (our most able US Supreme Court justices thought this way) and getting the money interests OUT of our no-longer-so-democratic process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whose's Constitution?
Posted by: Scott on Dec 6, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS article must be a Republican bid to gain total control.... I can just see in my mind how bad this nation would be if this group got their way! There is not one proposal that I would agree with!

1) Congress has the power to declare war and if any thing changed there IT would be to have the president who sends american troops into battle any where without the approval of Congress would immediately be impeached, no trial, just gone!

2) As for foreign citizens becoming president, how do we protect against a "fox in the hen house" ?

3) Adding more Senators, oh yeah that is just what this country needs, more idiots up there collecting BIG paychecks, doing nothing. IF any thing, we give each state ONE Senator, make them work six months out of the year, go home, leave Washington the other six, MAKE a living AT home and not on our backs in DC!

4) Term limits - SURE - for Congress, Senators serve two terms, 12 yrs. and Rep.'s can serve three 4 yr. terms, they all get by on what money they can earn AT home and the only funds they get in DC is for a staff of 12 people and for conducting their office's business!

5) Term limits for Judges, esp. the Supreme Court, bad idea over all. Let the people elect local judges, let the states appoint their Supreme Court judges, let the president appoint the US Supreme Court (as we do now) and LET ALL understand that when the COURTS speak, that is it..... All we need is a bunch of judges making decisions because they are scared witless!!!!!

6) Universal Service, well that one might be agreeable, IF EVERY ONE had to do it, the length of the service needs to be longer then two yrs., cause you can't train any one to do a decent job and get decent work out of them in two yrs..... IT would need to be at least three, most likely four yrs., and THEN IT should be done right after high school, right after dropping out of high school, THEN they can go to college and get married and make babies!

7) Transforming the elections, well something does need to be done there, but popular elections (votes) may not be the total solution. The primary season needs to be short, probably regional primaries, maybe similar to the setup we have for the federal district courts, or fed. reserve system, probably no more then 7 or 9 regional districts!

8) Citizenship, well most folks who do become citizens ought to be able to have full rights, the same as all of us, well some of us, but to allow a first time in country immrg. to run for president, that is a little too scary for me! We certainly need to watch these Repb.'s who want to take away the "born in country birth right to citizenship"... those ideas are dangerous, who would be next to be denied citizenship, gays, aliens, people of color, poor people, women, children until they are 21????

NOPE we don't need a convention or a committee to change OUR consitution, our fathers gave us a method, we need to follow it........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Universal Service..pfft Posted by: meetmeineleusis
Interesting
Posted by: Robba29 on Dec 6, 2007 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a middle school civics teacher I find this list very interesting, as these are things my students and I have discussed in class. Currently we are working on a project to explore term limits for congressional representatives (either senate or the house). The only problems I have with the list is that the two-per-state senate was enacted for a reason--to ensure that smaller states were not overpowered and ruled by larger states and for continuity (hence the 6 year term). The House is where population is represented, and that is where I think there needs to be an overhaul. Namely, two year terms are too short (at least 3 needed) and the total number of representatives needs to be increased (we did the math, the current representative to person ratio is ~ 1:690,000; where the least populace states have a greater ratio (MT has a 1:900,000) and larger states having a smaller ratio (CA has 1:680,000). Either way, its way off from the designated 1:20,000 ratio first envisioned by the founders. Not only that, but Washington DC has been disenfranchised for years, not to mention our territories. However, we can't have a house with 15,000 representatives. The senate is broken in the sense that they have no term limits and no accountability--like the judiciary (and the House for that matter).
Other than that, I appreciate this article, very timely for me to use in class!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting Posted by: RickHarlan
» RE: Interesting Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Interesting Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Interesting Posted by: Robba29
AN OVER REACTION
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 6, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can't make changes to the constitution based upon the worst president in the history of our country. These days nothing sems to be 'working'. We don't need new rules,we need new people who know how to live by the rules we already have. George Bush would have trashed the constitution no matter what it said. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly Posted by: CUnknown
Blacks will never defend this nation as is
Posted by: nfamous on Dec 6, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To hell with that national requirement for military service. I'm not signing up to kill anyone that hasn't bothered us or to steal people's oil. I'm black and black people don't owe this country anything. This country owes us. Once the playing field is level and the US is doing the right thing in the world instead of bullying and killing innocents then we can talk about service to the country. This country was founded on slavery and genocide and white supremacy abounds still today to the demise of minorities. When I call truly call myself a citizen with full rights and equal protection of the law, only then will I defend it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

federalist papers
Posted by: karyse on Dec 6, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author needs to go back and read the arguments for and against DEMOCRACY. We are a REPUBLIC -- and like it or not, that was the position that won and for good reasons.

a Con-Con? I think not. That would be extrodinarily dangerous and anyone educated before we stopped teaching the Constitution knows this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Constitutional Change Number 7 a.k.a. Catch 22
Posted by: SmallVoice on Dec 6, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given how campaigns are run and financed, and who can realistically run, it would take a miracle for the six amendments suggested to make it into law unless a seventh one was in force first.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, eligible citizens were more or less on an equal footing, both in financial resources and media access.

Furthermore, holding and having held office did not initially entail the outrageous privileges and financial benefits existing today; in fact, for many, it meant a sacrifice, then a return to life as an ordinary citizen.

In theory, all Americans - regardless of their financial status - can run successfully for office; however, it is doubtful that Abraham Lincoln would make it to the primaries if he was running today.


A true and lasting Constitutional change could include the following features:

- once certain conditions have been satisfied to weed out mentally ill and fame-seeking individuals (requiring a percentage of the voting population to sign a petition to allow an individual to run, for instance),

- the FCC insures that all candidates have equal access to network and public television.

- the FEC insures that all candidates have the same public budget at their disposal to campaign with.

- to satisfy the first amendment, individual donations are allowed, with four conditions:

1) no anonymous donation,
2) no bundling,
3) businesses and unions are individuals (one entity, one individual donation),
4) a donation cannot exceed a fixed amount.

- the compensation for any federal office is the national average salary, this compensation is paid for the duration of the mandate plus twenty years after leaving office.

- former office holders are barred for twenty years from any private employment (including compensation for speeches and books).


This is the kind of medicine that would cure our ailing democracy by bringing trustworthy and dedicated people in Congress and the White House: true public servants with the spirit of Jay, Hamilton, and Madison.

Of course, as mentioned above, it would take a miracle for it to pass...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most Important Missing
Posted by: aberdeen on Dec 6, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article leaves out the two most important changes necessary:

1) A Constitutional amendment banning all gifts of any kind to candidates except from private individuals and, limiting donations from private individuals to 1% of the national median wage per candidate per year (about $485 today). Require ALL radio and televisions to provide free equal airtime to qualified candidates (including local candidates in their area) in order to keep their FCC license. Candidates determined "qualified" by obtaining enough signatures of registered voters, depending on office being sought and size of constituent base (i.e, candidates for city council would obviously require less signatures than candidates for U.S. senator, and similar). THIS WOULD ELIMINATE OVER 95% OF THE CURRENT PROBLEM, WHICH CURRENTLY RESULTS IN GOVERNMENT OF THE WEALTHY, BY THE WEALTHY AND FOR THE WEALTHY.

2) Constitutional amendment for sane weapons control regulation. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to say about "guns" but rather, it addresses the much broader issue of "weapons". We are either going to allow citizens to own private nuclear bombs and manufacture private supplies of anthrax or, we are going to have sane weapons regulation. There is no middle ground, based on what the 2nd Amendment currently states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Most Important Missing Posted by: Axiom69
Different Take
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 6, 2007 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1- An outright statement that corporations and other entities created by the Federal or other governments are not persons in any way shape or form, nor do they have any expressed or implied powers or rights beyond that explicitly listed by law.

2- An simple statement that forbids the seniority system in both the House and the Senate. The fact that one state or district keeps sending the same senile person back just to accumulate power goes against the basics of representative government.

3- An unambiguous statement regarding the commonwealth- the air, water and public lands. That these properties or trusts belong to the people and not the government. That the government is the trustee on behalf of the people- a steward and nothing more.

4- A clear establishment of the universal rights of all citizens to education, healthcare, free association with other adults (including civil unions), the right to organize at work without fear or consequence, freedom to practice and freedom from religious faith.

5- A requirement that all laws, legal documents and court rulings be written and communicated in clear, unambiguous english- without latin derived terms. Vernacular language to enhance understanding by all- not just lawyers.

6- A requirement for a balanced budget, subject to a line-item veto by the executive. A further requirement that the budget be delivered as a whole- not slice and diced to hide and obscure the activities of government.

7- A limitation on the powers of the Supreme Court, banning them from creating law out of thin air and limiting their powers to that expressed in the Constitution. No more Gore v Bush appointments of a President by a court without standing.

8- A change in the way Constitutional amendments are made. Instead of the approval of the majority of State Assemblies, the requirement should mandate the approval of a majority of state voter referendums.

9- A ban on sitting Senators, Representatives or Cabinet Officers running for another Federal Office without first resigning the office they hold. Senators and representatives need to get back to work. The public shouldn't pay you to run for office. Do your job.

10 - A direct declaration that human rights to trial by jury, discovery of evidence, presentation before a judge, protection from torture and a speedy public trial before other citizens are intrinsic human rights. They are ours and the government, which did not grant them, can not take them away- even under the most extreme circumstances.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Different Take Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Different Take Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Different Take Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Different Take Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Different Take Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Different Take Posted by: tiellis
» RE: Different Take Posted by: tiellis
Cooking with grease!
Posted by: jmooney on Dec 6, 2007 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now we're talking! I've been thinking (and sometimes saying) for years that we need another Constitutional Convention. Professor Sabato is right on the money. I would add that we need to address campaign financing as well, specifically adding an amendment that would permit Congress and state legislatures to place limits on how much money can be spent on elections. Would that restrict free speech? Yeah, in a way. But it would also enhance the speech of regular, everyday people who don't have deep pockets and who aren't aligned with lobbying groups from the right AND/OR the left. We take a bit of freedom away from the well-healed and the well-organized and enhance the speech of regular Joes and JoAnnes.

We might also mandate that all candidate funds be totally "blind" so that the candidates would not know who gave what to whom. Citizens wouldn't know, but that's not as important as the candidates NOT knowing. That would stop vote buying.

Robert Reich's new book on "Supercapitalism" talks about walling off our democracy from capitalism. He believes that our democracy has become dysfunctional because captitalism has so comprehensively infected it and caused it to not operate the way it once did, where government was able to protect workers and the general citizery from capitalistic extremes. Reich would have capitalism dwell in its sphere while our democratic institutions act as honest ombudsmen between capitalistic interests and the interests of the general citizenry.

I agree with Reich. We liberals are fighting fires here and there, trying to nudge business to be more altruistic, but business is never going to be altruistic. Even if they do altruistic things in the area of socially responsble investing, philantrophy, etc., it will still be designed to help out their bottomline. Heck, even Halliburton does a lot of philantrophic things. Why? To make peiole think they care. But businesses don't care. As Reich says, businesses aren 't people. They are contractural entities. And they exist to make money. Trying to cajole them to be socially responsible is ultimately a waste of time and energy. Restoring our democracy to a place where it can mandate appropriate business behavior, now that's something worth doing. Restore democracy and let the chips fall where they may.

Sure, another convention would be open to debate and all that, and one might say it would open us up to some unintended consequences, but this idea that people were more statesman-like back then and that we aren't up to the challenge now, well, that's just a self-fulfilling prophesy. We're up to the challenge if we want to be up to the challenge. As the article says, those people were ultimately revolutionaries. Holding another convention and fixing some problems they could never have foreseen, that's not revolutionary, that would be evolutionary. We can do it. We aren't inherently less alturistic than those early founders. We all know they left us with some bad stuff (slavery) to deal with. They weren't perfect. Neither are we. But we needn't fear our ability to make meaningful change.

We need another Constitutional Convention aimed at restoring our democracy to what it once was. Sure you had corruption back in the old days, but Congress and legislatures weren't so enmeshed in the money game that they couldn't take meaningful action to protect workers and the general citizenry from the excesses of capitalism. Reich refers to modern-day politicians as having a "suck pump" into the underpinnings of "Supercapitalism" that puts them all under a cloud of doubt and makes it virtually impossible for issues to be looked at based on merit as opposed to who has the biggest wallet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't fix what ain't broke Posted by: CUnknown
» Self-fulfilling Prophecy Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Self-fulfilling Prophecy Posted by: CUnknown
Who the hell invited this corporate rightwing author ?!?!?
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 6, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All along he's been playing "nice" with the neocon/neolib gang and now he's all of a sudden "concerned" about the Constitution? Arrgggh, another "Toby Keith" BULLSHITTER pretending "concern" all of a sudden !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amendments he should have mentioned...
Posted by: kroenung58 on Dec 6, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re: War Powers...
"The Commander in Chief-- accompanied by the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the House and Senate Majority/Minority leaders-- shall be physically present in the front lines for the duration of all military action either approved by Congress or undertaken by the President. All infantry patrols shall be led by a member of the majority party in Congress.
All military appropriations shall contain the funds to withdraw all troops safely and immediately; all military authorizations shall expire in 6 months and the withdrawl order automatically given if not renewed by a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress."

Re: Health Care...
"Every resident of the U.S. shall receive the same health care benefits as the President and Congress receive, at no cost."

Re: Habeus Corpus, etc.
"All persons, regardless of citizenship or origin, who are under the control of the United States in any way whatsoever--irrespective of their physical location--shall be granted all of the rights in a court of law of which are granted to U.S. citizens."

Re: Filibusters and Congresional obstruction...
"There shall be no filibusters, holds, or any other similar obstructive tactics in either house of Congress; however, all legislation must receive the vote of 25% of the minority party to become law."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worst article on alternet in a long time
Posted by: jbur816 on Dec 6, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The founders didn't want this. That is why they wrote the constitution in exactly the way that they did. A LOT of thought went into it, by greater minds than this hack. What makes this guy think that he has special insight into what they would want now? Term limits on judges? Bad idea. Talk about politicizing our judiciary. Mandatory military service? The founders didn't even like the idea of having a standing army.

We have enough problems with the Bush administration burning the constitution. Now, we have to watch the liberals try to do more of it? Stop tearing it apart and start restoring it. For two hundred years or so, it seemed to be doing just fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jefferson saw a real danger from monopolies
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Dec 6, 2007 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1788.

I consider myself a progressive constitutionalist who believes, foremost, in "a government by the people and for the people" -- where corporate personhood is understood to be totally against the dictates of the individuals who rebelled against, and rejected, the power and dominance prevalent in the late eighteenth century when the British crown and trading companies (i.e., what we know today as "corporations", or as in Jefferson's day, "monopolies") conspired against the colonial inhabitants. I believe corporate personhood to be the root cause of all of our social ills. Until this paradigm shifts back to the original intents of our founding brothers, where corporations are granted through limited charters by the states (i.e., We the People), we'll continue to suffer the inequities and loss of democratic freedoms that are systemic to our current culture and way of life.

Eliminating corporate personhood would make any constitutional convention unnecessary and redundant. The current Constitution would work admirably if, We the People, were again the true heirs to its protections and given rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leave it alone
Posted by: recj50 on Dec 6, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one liberal/progressive American who says leave the Constitution alone! Its not suppose to be easy, otherwise we would have lost our freedoms along time ago. Unfortunately in America we typically react to a problem rather than act on a problem. We wait til it gets so bad that we must do something. I believe that time will soon be upon us. Though many will suffer by than.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a Few More!
Posted by: Stoney 12+1 on Dec 6, 2007 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any adult in The United States of America has the right to use whatever psycho-active compound he, or she choses! That "The War on Drugs" has been found to be an abysmal failure just like Prohibition before it!

Since there is indeed a separation of Church and State, the enaction of laws based solely on, or intended to enforce religious dogma, or doctrine are unconstitutional, except to enforce rights of property, or public safety.

The law shall recognize the age of adulthood to be eighteen years of age! If you're old enough to cast a vote, you're old enough to cop a buzz!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here's a Few More! Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: What Good is it? Posted by: Stoney 12+1
» I love the 9th Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Here's a Few More! Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE:Ality ChecK! Posted by: cami0
My amendment for new checks and balances Part1.
Posted by: magus65 on Dec 6, 2007 6:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A government that is well regulated by the people being essential to the cause of freedom and liberty a new branch of government known as the Lottoriate shall be created in order to provide such regulation. This new branch of government will be composed of two natural born citizens selected by lottery based upon the ID/Driver's license records of each state. Each state will select 100 of it's citizens via blind lottery with a numbered ranking dependent on the order of the draw. Candidate one will be notified as to their selection and will be given the opportunity to take office or decline based upon their acceptance of the conditions of office. A candidate who does not wish to serve or does not feel they could accept the terms of office would be removed from the lottoriate list and the office would then be offered to the next in line of the chosen candidates. Each state's lottery shall be held once every five years each office holder holding office for ten years. In this way each state shall have two Lottoriate representatives with one of them being replaced every five years so that the Lottoriate shall maintain approximately half of it's office holder's at any given time.

Terms of office:

1. Members of the Lottoriate shall disposses themselves of all stocks, bonds, landholdings, and other fiscal ties from whatever source derived before taking office.

2. Members of the Lottoriate shall resign from all group affiliations whether professional, public or private before taking office.

3. All members of the Lottoriate shall agree to serve for a 10 year term.

4. All members of the Lottoriate shall not be elligible for any second term of office in the Lottoriate or for any Federal office or Federal cabinet position in perpetuity for the remainder of their lives.

5. Members of the Lottoriate shall not accept gifts or renumeration of any form while they hold office except for that which is paid to them by virtue of that office.

6. Members of the Lottoriate shall be able to pass a standard IQ test with a minimum score of at least 90 points.

Powers and responsibilities:

1. The Lottoriate shall be responsible for monitoring the actions of all Federal office holders and holding them accountable to the natural born (non-corporate) people of the United States and to the Constitution of the United States.

2. All claims by the Department of Justice to executive priveledge or national security shall be reviewed by the Lottoriate. When the Lottoriate determines that no legitimate national security exists the government may either proceed in the court case with the disputed information revealed for the public record or concede the case to the plaintiff in casses both criminal and civil.

3. The Lottoriate may at it's discretion nullify any supreme court ruling, executive directive, executive signing statement, or law passed by congress with a super majority vote of 75% with at least 80% of all office holders present at the time of the vote.

4. Henceforth the power to declare martial law within the United States of America shall be at the sole discretion of the Lottoriate. The President of the United States may request martial law powers from the Lottoriate at any time. Upon such event the Lottoriate will meet within 24 hours to rule upon the President's request for Martial Law Powers to determine whether the situation is necessary and consistant with the requirements set forth by the Constitution. The granting of Martial Law powers shall only be granted upon a super majority vote of 75% of the Lottoriate with 80% of the Lottoriate present during the vote. The lottoriate may rescind such martial law powers when ranted under a simple majority vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part2
Posted by: magus65 on Dec 6, 2007 6:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
5. All extra legal designations such as enemy combatant which circumvent the Constitution shall be reviewed by the Lottoriate within 60 days of such designation being made. When a reviews determine that such designations are unwarranted by a national emergency the designation shall be overturned and the prisoner shall be remanded to trial under law with the full protections and rights provided by the Constitution and of the Laws of the United States of America.

6. The Lottoriate shall have the power to issue subpeona's to any citizen of the United States, or foreign residant of the United states in the course of it's investigations. Any person knowingly deying such subpeona shall be guilty of contempt of the People of the United states and may be arrested for such crimes by the Lotoriate and held for a maximum of 90 days without trial at which time the person or person's shall be remanded to the custody of local law enforcement for a speedy trial under the Constitution.

7. Members of the Lottoriate shall not be denied access to any Federal documents or facillities including government offices, embassies, and military installations.

8. Members of the Lottoriate shall have the power to designate special prosecutors and courts to try any member of the Federal Government or of the Military for any Federal Crime including Treason and War Crimes.

9. The Lottoriate may at any time excercise extraordinary rendition upon any Federal Office holder or employee that it deems to be guilty of war crimes or violation of international treatise to which the United States of America is a party. At the Lottoriates discretion said persons may be extradited to the World Court for prosecution if the offense falls into the category of war crimes. Employees of private contractors employed by the Federal government shall be considered federal employees for these purposes.

10. The Lottoriate shall command an enforcement arm composed of a 1,000 man strong special forces unit. These forces shall, at the direction of the Lottoriate, be empowered to arrest or detain any Federal Office Holder or former Federal office holder at any time using whatever force necessary to achieve such actions. These forces shall, when directed by majority vote of the Lottoriate, be empowered to enter any place and gather information, written or electronic, without regard to security classification that would normally restrict access to certain individuals.

11. Members of the Lottoriate shall enjoy diplomatic immunity from prosecution while in office unless remanded to the custody of local or federal law enforcement by a simple majority vote of the Lottoriate.

12. Henceforth all federal laws and regulations pertaining to Federal elections shall only be made by the Lottoriate and not by the Congress.
Such laws and regulations will be overturned or challenged only in the Supreme Court when such laws are challenged on constitutional grounds.

13. Members of the Lottoriate shall receive the same rate of federal pay and benefits including pensions as does the Congress of the United States of America with the following exception. Members of the Lottoriate shall receive access to a primary residence provided by the Lottoriate within 3 miles of the Lottoriate building.

14. To maximize the ability of the Lottoriate to remain free of political influence the physical meeting place of the lottoriate shall be located in one the western coastal states of the United States of America, these being the states of Washington, Oregon, and California.

15. The budget for the Lottoriate branch of government shall be allocated by Congress and shall not be less than 1% of the budget granted by Congress to the Pentagon and the US military. At the end of each fiscal year unused funds shall be dispersed equally to the states based on population.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Part2 Posted by: crazy carlos
» Thanks, but...no thanks Posted by: nochicagoboys
The problem with the right/left.
Posted by: magus65 on Dec 6, 2007 6:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Respect the bill of rights or shut up. Why do both the right and left think they have a right to strip out the bits they don't care for yet maintain the parts they like. The Constitution could use an amendment or two but the bill of rights should be considered sacrosanct by any freedom loving patriot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen Posted by: CUnknown
while were at it...change the citizenship rule
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Dec 6, 2007 8:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
while were at it...change the citizenship rule...

one has to be a legal resident of the united states to have their children born as US citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some more ideas...
Posted by: onevoter on Dec 6, 2007 9:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Abolish the Electoral College. One person, one vote. Period. It is an antiquated system. One reason many do not vote is because their vote isn't really for the President and Vice-President, but for the "electors."

This would also eliminate the "winner take all" electoral votes in each state. This theoretically, and frequently in practice, disenfranchises almost half of the voters in each state.

2) Term limits for the House (5 two-year terms)

Term limits for the Senate (2 six-year terms)

This would be 10 years , and 12 more years if someone was elected and served in both. 22 years is a generation in office, more than enough.

3) Limit campaign contributions to those who are registered eligbile voters in that district or state. Why should someone who cannot vote for a particular office be able to contribute to a candidate running for that office?

The amount per voter can be debated and worked out. This would eliminate the idea of corporations and interest groups as people.

4) Require office holders to serve the entire term for which they were elected before they run for another office. (unless they are impeached and/or legally removed from office). Or, they can choose to quit if they want to seek another office immediately. The office they vacated would remain unoccupied for the remainder of that term. This would, in effect, keep their egos in check. Imagine the outrage of voters if their representative or senator left the office unoccupied? This leads us to...

5) Allow voters in each district or state to have a recall election of their rep or senator. The means to do so could be debated and worked out. Perhaps a certain number of signatures?

6) Require a balanced budget.

7) Allow taxpayers to designate which cabinet departments get their taxes. They could designate it all for one, or split it up among as many as they like.

Just some more ideas....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Two more... Posted by: MartianBachelor
Universal Service
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Dec 6, 2007 10:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder how many of you Universal Service proponents would agree with such an idea if the Universal Service was applied retroactively. Anyone below retirement age would within a 2 year period have to put in their 2 years of service to the country. They'd have to make arrangements to drop whatever they're doing and serve the nation.

"But we have lives! We have obligations!"

yeah..not such a great idea now is it?

Young people have aspirations and dreams. There is no need for them to have to sacrifice 2 years of their lives that could be applied to learning and earning a degree to repay some phantom debt to their society.

They'll be contributing their share when they PAY THEIR TAXES.

Forcing them to work for peanuts will only foster resentment towards the state, not some deeply founded sense of commitment.

You want them to take pride in their nation and contribute?
Quit screwing around and provide them with a nation to inherit that THEY CAN BE PROUD OF or kindly shut the hell up.

You libs are just as bad as the god damned neocons, only replace "War" with "Volunteerism"

It's all well and good to send someone off to do a job, so long as you don't have to do it, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» how about one year of eco-service Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: how about one year of eco-service Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: Universal Service Posted by: TheLimit
Wow...where to begin?
Posted by: lexicon on Dec 7, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sign in with the faction that considers this author's list of proposed Constitutional amendments to be terribly ill-considered!!!!!

I agree that there are some tweaks that need to be made...and I'll enumerate those below. But first, we must step back and recall the real purpose and utility of the Constitution...what it IS.

The Constitution should not be considered as 'the law' per se...it really is something different..it is more like "meta-law". 'meta' law is the "laws about making laws". The Constitution should NOT be cluttered up with spirit-of-the-day changes! Most of those proposed by the author of this piece are just that.

I have a couple that I'll name, that should give an example of how my thinking goes on this.

First, I reiterate the previously mentioned Constitutional Amendment: Corporations are not persons, and shouldn't have rights like persons. Here is how I'd word it:

"Whereas the right to assemble, toward common purpose, whether such purpose is for political, economic, social, or other reasons, is held incontrovertible; And whereas the incorporation of such an assembly is recognized under this Law as creating a unique entity, separate and apart from the persons so enjoined; The nature and essence of that incorporated entity is of a Contract, drawn between We The People of these United States in Common, and the underlying persons so incorporated; Such a Contract of incorporation contains and embodies a Duty to avoid actions that injure the Common Good, and a Duty to respect the Laws; Resolved that a Contract of incorporation that exists to subvert the Laws, and also that any Contract which, through its excercise, subverts the Laws, shall be held invalid, and dissolved; Resolved that any citizen of the United States, individually or severally, having been harmed under Law or injury to the Common Good, may petition for redress and/or invalidation of a Contract of Incorporation."




That's a fun one.


Now, on to the next one. Recess appointments:

"Whereas the original Founders anticipated long spans of time during which The Congress would be in recess, and unable to assemble a Quorum; And that the Founders recognized that certain critical diplomatic, judicial, administrative, and cabinet vacancies might occur; And that the Founders recognized the practical reality of their era: that communication with, and re-assembly of, The Congress could not occur within an expedient time frame; The Founders thus created the right of Recess Appointment, exclusive of Congressional Advice and Consent. Whereas the practical realities of communication and assembly no longer present such difficulties, the President may no longer perform recess appointments without Congressional Advice and Consent. The President and/or Majority Leader of the Senate is empowered to arrest and retain any Senator, in the event that a quorum cannot be attained, for the purpose of executing the Constitutionally mandated Presidential Appointments of administrative offices, cabinet seats, judicial appointments, or diplomatic appointments. "


there's number two. a good start. There's a third one, but I'm out of time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow...where to begin? Posted by: EncinoM
Here's number three...
Posted by: lexicon on Dec 7, 2007 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Whereas the competent, legitimate and lawful functioning of the federal government relies on the meaningful participation of the electorate; Whereas one of the essential definitions and actions of citizenship is enshrined in meaningful participation of the individual in the electorate; Therefore be it resolved that all citizens of the United States are defined as being members of the electorate; Therefore be it resolved that all members of the electorate are entitled to vote for candidates in federal elections; Also be it resolved that the natural mother of, or in absence, the natural father of, or in absence, the adult legal guardians of citizens of the United States who are minor children or are incompetent or invalid, shall vote by proxy for that minor child, incompetent, or invalid, unless that person declares an intent to vote him/herself, and demonstrates the ability to read the ballot;"

and this one:

"Whereas the deliberate, complete, and accurate counting of ballots for federal elections is essential to the functioning of a competent, legitimate and lawful government; Whereas the ability to examine, review, and affirm the ballot count itself, and the process by which ballots are counted, is essential to the determination of a fair, lawful, and competent election; Whereas the expediting of the ballot count is paramount to ensuring a fair, lawful, and competent election; Be it resolved that all ballots prepared for use in federal elections shall have two parts: a First Part that is printed in ink, that records the voter's selections in the native written language of that voter, and also in American English, for use in manual counts; and a Second Part that is printed in ink, that records the voter's selections in a form suitable for reading via automatic mechanism; The format, style, and configuration of the First part shall be such that it can also be evaluated via automatic mechanisms, and the Second part shall be such that it can also be evaluated via human, manual review.; Be it also resolved that all intermediate steps and processes of vote gathering, counting, and tabulation shall be openly available for review by any citizen of the United States; Be it also resolved that a complete record of the chain of control for each ballot shall be rigorously maintained, and any and all primary or intermediate artifacts of the gathering, counting, and tabluation of ballots shall be rigorously maintained and archived, and preserved for a period not less than three terms-of-office of the longest running office on the ballot; Be it also resolved that the caretaker of ballot material archives shall be the Secretary of State of the state in which the election took place, and also the Federal Library of Congress; Be it further resolved that any tampering, misuse, destruction, or other means of impairing the chain of control of ballot materials, shall be considered an act of Treason."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disband "representative" government.
Posted by: UndergroundPirate on Dec 8, 2007 8:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Representative government was created at a time when people had no other means to make their voices heard. Now, we have many direct means to be heard, like the Internet. Our "representatives" routinely ignore our voices as they support war, racism, gay bashing, religion, and mostly the benefit of corporations over our will. It is time to eliminate the house, senate, and the president.
How much worse could it get if the greedy, fat American public made their decisions, instead of the fat, greedy corporate government?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds Like a 3 Year Old Created This List
Posted by: Joe on Dec 12, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything sounds like it came from a cartoon on Nickelodeon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Alternative to the Article
Posted by: djnoll on Dec 12, 2007 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On http://www.standandeliveramerica.com

there is a posting of the first part of a New Bill of Rights that addresses the questions of corporate personhood. there is a New Declaration of Independence that addresses the issues that should be addressed today by Congress. There are also two postings that offer a different structure for the Federal Government and can be the basis for a new Constitution.

Fact: The state governors can call for a new constitutional convention if the people of their states demand such action, it does not require Congress to act.

Possible future if we do not act now: A facist dictatorship run by religious fanatics and corporate interests, with our current Constitution being a smoke-screen. whoops, we are already there!!!!

http://www.standanddeliveramerica.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jay
Posted by: agentj on Dec 13, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most important amendment we should make is the removal of "personhood" for corporations.

Only human beings should enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights.

Corporations should be ejected from the political process and denied constitutional protections.

Only then can we have real democracy.
(One person - one vote.)

Other reforms should include:
Replacement of the two-party system,
An election day holiday,
Proportional representation,
Automatic runoff voting,
Free political advertising on the public airwaves,
A three-strikes law for corporations,
to name a few.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The most important issue is SECRECY
Posted by: jimbee on Dec 13, 2007 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All government secrets shall have an expiration date by default. Unless explicitly renewed, information becomes public information after that date.

Another problem nobody's talking about is the fact that there is no cop on the beat in Washington. I'd propose an independent law enforcement agency funded and run solely by the states. It's only job would be to investigate and prosecute corruption among high officials in the three branches--a kind of permanent special prosecutor's office.

The problem isn't so much the constitution as it is the broken checks and balances. The constitution clearly states that the people are entitled to an accounting of how the government spends their money. Yet we have a huge black budget. Is there nothing we can do? Is the constitution just bunch of nice sounding words that only mean what the powerful say it does?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

increase house seats, break up states
Posted by: whealeydj on Dec 13, 2007 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mother Jones had an article several years ago suggesting that existing large population states be broken up so size of each would be more similar. Ohio would become 3 states. That article suggested it was unconstititional. to reformulate states any other way like combining Wyoming and Montana or the two Dakotas. I heard Sabato on NPR a few weeks ago discuss his book. and he did insist on keeping the Bill of Rights.

I think the idea of doubling the capacity of the House at minimum would be a good thing. the number has not changed since 1910 much smaller countries have a larger number of representatives. if each district was the size of the smallest state this would be one way to make the House more Representative.

Does anyone know if Sabato suggest instant runoff voting or proportional representation? these are idea that might help break the dominance of the two big parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement